[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Wed Oct 18 07:39:00 UTC 2006

I disagree with your advocacy.

You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the
community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board
languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in
new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.

Mark

On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.