[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language
ScottL
scott at mu.org
Wed Oct 18 07:44:38 UTC 2006
Fair enough.
SKL
Gerard Meijssen 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
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list