Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially, recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation
There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a dictionary that, because it was established as a dictionary written using words that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards, does not maintain the same standards as a dictionary? Neither of them is acceptable.
Dominic