[Wikipedia-l] About creating a new language on Wikipedia

[A. Decorte]

In Friulian we translated the normal words, such as mouse, to click,
computer, login and so on. But we prefer not to translate technical
word, because I think it's confusing. I mean, in music, other
languages use Italian words, because Italian was the language of
classical music. English is the same in this field. In my opinion is
mainly a problem of understanding:  will the translated word be
clearer? Or they will be confusing for those who already know the
English word, but still not useful for those who didn't know it?
Neologisms could attract interest, but what if people come, see a
Wikipedia in a "artificial language", and go away? Every lost user is
a big problem for small wikies.
Then there is also the problem to "transfer" new words to spoken
language: we translate computer with "ordenadôr", but I heard this
word used only by a man who lives in France, but it has Friulian
origins. And I guess he used it under the influence of French.

By the way in Friulian we say "fâ San Martin" for moving too ;-)

On 7/11/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Admittedly, we had similar worries when we started the UI localization for
> our wiki. The basic fear was that "people won't be able to use it". The
> discussion was quite long and the number of candidate words was judged by a
> much larger community than those who eventually got involved in the wiki.
>
> We eventually decided that when you offer a product (because any localized
> software IS a product) you have to give it an added value, i.e. a reason why
> people would use it. We identified this value in "being able to explain to
> what IT mumbo-jumbo actually means". The result is positive, there is not a
> single english word left in our wiki and people magically "understood" what
> is used to do what.
>
> The only requests I am receiving are about totally clearing from english
> other UIs. You might be surprised, but the highest pressure comes from young
> (15-20 y.o.) bilingual users, who are native or almost native in english,
> too. It has nothing to do with liking english or not, it's about using a
> language for what it's meant to do: to deliver a clear message.
>
> The choice of words really depends on what's current in your language. In
> our case even if the dominant culture has long become industrial and it
> would take you ages to find a horse anywhere, there still are lots of
> metaphores originating from the farmers' life. Sometimes their roots are
> incredibly old.
>
> We don't "move things", we "make St. Martin" (because St. Martin's Day was
> the end of all location contracts in the Middle Age). We call someone who is
> chatting about everything a "marossé" (although not many people remember
> that they actually talk about a horse vendor). We say that "it takes 20
> solds to make a Lira" (because the 5 cent piece was called "sold" for almost
> a thousand years, coming from Emperor Constatine's "solidus"). I guess that
> none of those catholics who nowadays shout "you Catholic swine!" when
> something falls off their hands have a clue at the fact that the expression
> dates back to our 500 years long religious war. Yet they do curse like that,
> even if they are Catholics themselves.
>
> A language is social history condensed in sounds. Basically nobody remembers
> the "because" section behind most words, yet they are current in everyday
> language and deliver a clear message. Moreover, most of the frequent press
> attention we get originates from the fact that our UI "is fun". Just one
> month after opening pms.wiki we got a giant article in the main newspaper in
> our area just because we translated "Web" literally :) At that point we
> understood that our "added value" could sell the project pretty well.
>
> Yes they laugh, so what? It's free ads you get, so let them laugh while you
> get your crop in fresh users :) It doesn't really matter how you get to be
> frontpage news, whoever gets there becomes "fancy" anyway. BTW, I'm
> currently localizing Drupal and a videogame called Freecol, so the number of
> "funny words" is growing exponentially...
>
> People like it, so why not? You know, if you start to believe that "your
> language is not fit" and resolve to abandon it (if only partially) then
> there's no reason for you to use that language at all. If you don't believe
> in what you're doing... than you probably chose the wrong business. You may
> be a wonderful contributor in other fields, but localizing is clearly not
> your bag.
>
> It's not only about Uis ant the IT, as I'm often surprised by what people
> write about physics and mathematics in Piemontese. Mostly because concepts
> are so much clearer than they are in Italian or English... If you look at
> our discussion pages you'll find that almost 70% of them are about the
> terminology used. Such results don't simply "happen", they are the result of
> a complex team-work.
>
> Anyway, all languages are unique and it takes some care to identify what
> moves are best in your context. When you translate an interface you really
> need to contact as many native speakers as you can and check their
> reactions. We work for the people, so their opinion comes first.
>
> Bèrto 'd Sèra
> Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri)
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:25 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] About creating a new language on Wikipedia
>
> Berto 'd Sera wrote:
>
> >This is true for every language that has its first UI developed for a wiki.
> >For a small number of words that totally wiki-related it's also true for
> >major languages, English included. "Wiki" wasn't an English word before
> >wikipedia.
> >
> This usage of wiki actually goes back to Ward Cunningham's WikiWiki
> Website in 1994.  That's before Wikipedia.
>
> >IMHO, most small languages don't need borrowing from English at all. They
> >have a long and sound tradition on their own, and can basically translate
> >all IT related words to make them "accessible".
> >
> In theory.  If you have a small glossary of common English IT terms that
> you want to translate into Piedmontese (Note the different "English"
> spelling even for this language term.) you will not have an easy time.
> If there is only a small number of these you can get away with literal
> translations.  If you introduce too many of them you will become
> incomprehensible because it begins to look like an out-of-context
> jumble.  It takes time for these neologisms to become understood in
> their new language and intended meaning, and the time usually isn't
> there.  In English, when there is no word for something you just make
> one up, begin to use it in key contexts, and it becomes acceptable.
> There is no academy to tell you that the word is right or wrong.  The
> evidence for a word comes from its usage.
>
> >We translate "Feed aggregator" as "Marossé" in piemontese, because that's
> >the word that historically defines the profession of "Horse trader", and it
> >has the added meaning of "the one who always knows what's going on where".
> >
> What's a "feed aggregator"?  What you say leads me to believe that it's
> some device for mixing the food that is given to livestock on a farm.
> I've lived in a city all my life, so what would I know about modern farm
> practices?  When you mention "horse trader" as a possible meaning I
> become thoroughly puxxled.  Horses are an old technology, and "horse
> trader", as we know it now, has drifted away from its original meaning.
> It has now come to mean a person who profits through a series of
> effective trades.  The recent case of the person who set off on the net
> trading a paper-clip for gradually more valuable items until he had
> acquired a home for himself is a great example of a horse trader. How
> will that contribute to my understanding of "feed aggregator"..
>
> >"Ping" is something you can pretty much translate with the verb you'd use
> to
> >"Knock at the door", etc.
> >
> "Ping" is onomatopoeic, that is to say it is understood by its sound.
> It does not resemble the sound made by a knock at the door.  It is a
> distinctly a higher pitched metallic sound such as in hockey when a
> slapshot strikes against a metal goal-post, or the sound of a single
> note on a vibrophone.  Very seldom does it have anything to do with
> wood, except perhaps in the resonance of a single note on the
> xylophone.  In English a cow says "Moo", a dog says "Woof", and a duck
> says "Quack", but the way speakers of another language perceive these
> animal sounds can be quite different.
>
> >One of the reasons behind the weakening of local languages (mid-sized
> >official languages included) is in that at a certain point in history they
> >gave up "explaining" things. In instead, they privileged the English
> >speaking layer of society.
> >
> To a point yes.  But English is absolutely profligate in the way it
> generates words.  Who could keep up with so many bastard children?
>
> >This eventually damaged English itself. The number of English words that
> are
> >drifting away from their original meaning because of the way in which they
> >are used in foreign languages is constantly increasing. I see that
> >frequently in business, as the number of "supposed to be in English" emails
> >and faxes coming from Italy is constantly growing.
> >
> As in the case of "horse trader" English doesn't need the help of any
> foreign language to create that drift.  When an English speaker sees
> these kinds of errors, and knows that the message is from a non-native
> speaker he has a good quiet laugh, and proceeds on the basis of what the
> word should be.  The point then becomes one of politeness, and how often
> do you tell a native foreign speaker about his English language errors.
> I know that they want to write better English, but pointing out mistakes
> too often can be horribly discouraging.
>
> There is a current example on the Wikimania site where the people who
> have registered are called "registrars".  It should be "registrants".  A
> litteral reading of "registrars" doesn't make any sense at all.  The
> correct word, however, can be inferred from the context.  In the
> interest of not being too picky, one lets it go.
>
> >As a result, people come to me asking to translate "from Italian English to
> >English". Since telepathy does not exist usually all I can do is have the
> >communication sent back and ask the guy to write in Italian.
> >
> Yes, that can save a lot of misunderstanding.  If the person making that
> request really doesn't believe that telepathy exists, he shouldn't be
> expecting you to use it. :-)
>
> >Importing English words is rarely doing any good both to your language AND
> >English; unless a native population really is bilingual in English.
> >
> It's not so harmful to English, because English has become able to
> absorb these variants.  In part it explains why American and British
> English have been able to adapt to each other on Wikipedia, and language
> aware English speakers are even able to make room for the peculiarities
> of India's Hinglish.
>
> >Roberto Bahamonde Andrade:
> >
> >However, there are many cases on communities can't avoid that "original
> >research". Many American languages (Quechua, Náhuatl, Cherokee) haven't
> >words for "edit", "talk page" or "internet", then is necessary find the
> form
> >of say such concepts. One way to solve it is paraphrasis and another way is
> >the borrowing of a word of English or Spanish and adapt it to phonetics of
> >the language. No matter the way used, the community of Wikipedians had made
> >original research.
> >
> Maybe, but it's up to each community to define what it means by original
> research.  At the very least if you are going to discuss original
> research in one of these languages that language must have a term for
> "original research".  Rules discussions should then take place in that
> language.  If a rule puts you in a Catch-22 something's wrong with the rule.
>
> >2007/7/5, GerardM:
> >
> >
> >>In the language committee we are not really happy with artificial
> languages
> >>or with languages long dead that are given a new lease of life because "we
> >>can". In dead languages you have to do original research in order to be
> able
> >>to name the concepts that are modern and foreign to that language as we
> know
> >>it. Wikipedia is not about original research and you have to create new
> >>words and in the process change the language in order to write an
> >>encyclopaedia that is to be used in this day and age.
> >>
> >>
> At one time I had an old medical dictionary (ca. 1820), and the entry
> for "cadaver" started with "A cadaver is generally immobile."
> Immobility for these dead languages means that they are no longer able
> to move, and generate new life.  We cannot expect that the new
> terminology that we invent for it will be accepted by the people who
> normally speak that language, because those people don't exist.  Our
> newly invented words do not rise above the level of fantasy.  The
> resulting encyclopedia is indeed to be used in this day and age, but
> only by people who do not exist.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>