[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

[Ray Saintonge]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>ScottL wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>ScottL wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an 
>>>>official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that 
>>>>language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should 
>>>>not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several constructed 
>>>>languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those 
>>>>should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a large 
>>>>swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our 
>>>>other criteria.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt 
>>    
>>
>>>the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the POV 
>>>is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a case 
>>>by case thing.
>>>      
>>>
>>Absolutely.  That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting 
>>point.
>>
    Hoi,

Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is 
the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what 
language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the 
all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given 
by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please 
explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the 
acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to 
do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use 
either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to 
use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.

It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some 
method behind the madness.

Thanks,
    GerardM

  

Your requests for explanations seem more rhetorical than substantive.  These requests would be better placed in the context of considering a specific language.  Beyond that you are attacking points that I never made.  I merely said that there are circumstances where there are better alternatives than a slavish adherence to standards.

Ec