Re: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: >>> >>>> 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(a)gmail.com>om>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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