[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Wed Oct 18 06:44:59 UTC 2006

Hoi,
I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is 
incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean 
that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this 
can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to 
follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well 
established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I 
do advocate to use these established ways.

My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they 
speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that 
are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that 
allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is 
that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been 
two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.

Thanks,
    GerardM

ScottL wrote:
>    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have 
> an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not 
> actually a language?
>
>    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a 
> new wikipedia to be formed.
>
>    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some 
> activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external 
> body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I 
> think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
>
> SKL
>
> GerardM wrote:
>   
>> Hoi,
>> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
>> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
>> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
>> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
>> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
>> difference and that we can do as we like.
>>
>> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
>> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
>> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
>>
>> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
>> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
>> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
>> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
>>
>> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
>> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
>> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
>> and work on amending the practices where needed.
>>
>> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
>> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
>> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
>> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
>> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    GerardM
>>
>> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>>
>>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>>
>>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>>
>>> This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>>
>>> We are not perfect.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
>>>>         
>>> have
>>>       
>>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
>>>>         
>>> iso,
>>>       
>>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
>>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
>>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
>>>>         
>>> proposer.
>>>       
>>>> I'll tell him.
>>>>
>>>> Arns
>>>>
>>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>         
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> There are two issues.
>>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>>
>>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
>>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
>>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
>>>>>           
>>> have
>>>       
>>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>>>>>           
>>> become
>>>       
>>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
>>>>>           
>>> am
>>>       
>>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>>>>>           
>>> Latvian.
>>>       
>>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
>>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
>>>>>           
>>> what
>>>       
>>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>>>>>           
>>> around.
>>>       
>>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
>>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
>>>>>           
>>> Florentine.
>>>       
>>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
>>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
>>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
>>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
>>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
>>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
>>>>>           
>>> to
>>>       
>>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>>>>>           
>>> Latgalian
>>>       
>>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>>>>>           
>>> literature
>>>       
>>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
>>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>>>>>           
>>> used
>>>       
>>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
>>>>>           
>>> it
>>>       
>>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
>>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
>>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
>>>>>           
>>> not
>>>       
>>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
>>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
>>>>>           
>>> imho
>>>       
>>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
>>>>>>             
>>>>> second
>>>>>           
>>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
>>>>>>             
>>> there
>>>       
>>>>> are
>>>>>           
>>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
>>>>>>             
>>> It's
>>>       
>>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> however
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>> my
>>>       
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>> proposed
>>>       
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>> like
>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>>>>>>>>                 
>>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>       
>>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angela