[Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed

[Dmcdevit]

Muke Tever wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at 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.
>>     
>
> tlh is also in ISO 639-2 as well, whose scope is more limited, codes being
> added to it "when it becomes apparent that a significant body of literature
> in a particular language exists."
>
> The full criteria are here:
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/criteria2.html
> (in brief, "that there is a significant body of literature in the language
> or describing the language".)
>
>   
>> So I repeat, your choices are either to have a dictionary define wordsusing words it does not define (Klingon words) or to define words (Klingonwords) that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards.
>>     
>
> First off, what kind of attestation are you seeking here?  There are published
> reference books on the language and several translations into Klingon have been made:
> Gilgamesh and a couple of Shakespeare plays are in print; online of course there's
> more, such as extensive selections from the Bible (linguist Nick Nicholas has
> the full text of the book of Mark on his website, among other things)...  This is
> as much as if not more than many minority natural languages have.
>   
*All* natural languages have a right to be included when they meet the 
requirements for starting a new language project, which is part of 
Wikimedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge *to every 
single person*. That is a false comparison.

So, you have no original literature whatsoever, and a hodgepodge of fan 
translations of famous works into this fictional alien language, and 
that ought to constitute enough use? Why is it that no one seems able to 
tell me how many fluent speakers there are? At least other languages 
have educational uses, including cross-lingual communication, ease of 
use or learning, simplification of existing languages, etc.
> I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns as to the origin of the language".
>   
I apologize if my concern that the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable 
organization we  volunteer for, be used for significant, educational 
purposes, as it is intended, appears elitist. That does not fit my 
definition of elitism, however, and bandying about the term is just an 
ad hominem distraction. This is the most important point. There is a 
reason that the MuppetWiki (a fine project, expanding rapidly) belongs 
on a non-WMF site like Wikia.
> If Klingon (or any other language) is to be rejected it should be on at least
> moderately objective criteria, which would pertain to the language's present,
> not its origin--the bar can be higher for a constructed language, but it should
> at least be presented an opportunity to rise above its birth.
>   
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional alien race on a 
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate 
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its 
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally 
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
> It seems [from what I can tell now] that the Klingon Wikipedia was closed down not
> because of any demerit in the language itself, but chiefly because it was not being
> used (having 60 articles at time of closing).  tlh.wiktionary, it seems, has at
> least two currently-active users (its admins) and 2,311 content pages.
That is not at all my understanding of how the Klingon Wikipedia closed. 
There was widespread community opposition. All wikis start small. Worse, 
I will note again that this wiki was an accidental creation without the 
Board's approval, and they have already voted to close the Klingon 
Wikipedia.


Dominic