[Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed

[Muke Tever]

Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
>> 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.

Ok, so you're drawing a distinction between natural languages and artificial
languages.  That's perfectly fine; I'd support a difference in the rules on
that ground myself.  But my response was not to that concern.

> 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?

I don't have anything; it's not my language.  I responded to your statement
that the words "cannot be attested," with attestation; the concept of 'enough
use' had not yet entered, and if you expect it to be met, you'll have to phrase
it more quantitatively.

> Why is it that no one seems able to tell me how many fluent speakers there are?

"Counting second language speakers is extremely difficult and approximate at best
and would run into the additional problem of deciding how well a person is supposed
to speak the language in order to be counted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_speaker_data

> At least other languages have educational uses, including cross-lingualcommunication, ease of use or learning, simplification of existing languages, etc.

All right, now you are proposing criteria for acceptable constructed language wikis.
That's fine too, though they are not the currently accepted criteria.

>> 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.

I wasn't speaking about the Wikimedia Foundation; I'm speaking of your opinion
of the language which seems largely to be based on its origin as the language
of a fictional alien race on a popular American television show, as if this were
somehow a less serious language origin than, say, having been cobbled together in the
altogether serious belief that it would bring about world peace, like several of the
more acceptable alternatives.

> That does not fit my definition of elitism, however, and bandying about the termis just an ad hominem distraction.

The point is to indicate your own argument seems to be rather _ad linguam_ (if I
may so mangle the phrase) -- it seems to be against Klingon because it is Klingon,
not because it meets any objective standard.

>> 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.

I hope I didn't indicate I held such a notion.  I intended to say its origins are
irrelevant to its status as a language, or ought to be.

> It only needs to be rejected for its present: which is as a linguistically
> unimportant, functionally nonexistent, and educationally useless language towrite a dictionary in.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
indicates that the only additional criterion for a fictional language wiki as opposed
to a natural language one is "a reasonable degree of recognition", not linguistic
importance, functional existence, or educational usefulness.  (It also links to
the discussion saying tlh.wikipedia was closed due to inactivity; if there is a more
correct discussion, it may be helpful to update the link appropriately.)


	*Muke!
-- 
website:     http://frath.net/