Hoi,
The point of teaching GRC is to help understand the old documents in GRC.
As it is not a living language the point is that students learn it as it
was. Innovation is therefore counter to the objective of teaching the
language. Compare this to Latin; the same applies but it has always been
spoken / used in the Roman Catholic church so it is a language where
documents can be found in Latin that are from many later centuries and it
does have this history of innovation.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3 February 2017 at 18:23, Jan van Steenbergen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > The issue is that grc developped over time and consequently what
> standard should be followed?
>
> There are plenty of languages with Wikipedias that do not have a single
> written standard. For example:
> * Silesian has two or three different orthographies, all of which can be
> used (in other words, it's the author who decides which orthography an
> article is in).
> * Norman has four different dialects, all of which can be used. Articles
> are also categorised by the dialects they are written in.
> * Rusyn has multiple dialects as well, but AFAIK they try to stick to the
> dialect used in Slovakia.
> * Some languages (like Serbo-Croat) can be written in multiple alphabets
> and have special software for switching between them.
> * If I recall correctly, I have seen cases of the same article having
> multiple versions in one Wikipedia.
>
> In other words, all kinds of possibilities. My guess is that in the case
> of grc it will be Attic Greek for 99%, but if there will be a few articles
> in Doric or Koine, then I'd say that would be an enrichment.
>
> Cheers,
> Jan
>
> 2017-02-02 21:52 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The issue is that grc developped over time and consequently what standard
>> should be followed?
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>>
>> Op do 2 feb. 2017 om 15:52 schreef MF-Warburg <[email protected]>
>>
>>> Shouldn't we, when we accept this line of argument, also accept Ancient
>>> Greek (grc)?
>>>
>>> 2017-02-02 12:34 GMT+01:00 Oliver Stegen <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I found Jan's exposition most helpful and actually convincing - thanks!
>>>
>>> In response, I am no longer opposed to make lfn eligible. Go ahead! (And
>>> may it thrive.)
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> On 02-Feb-17 10:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I like the argument put forward by Jan and Michael. Personally I do not
>>> mind when people are busy with knowledge in any language and we do know
>>> that some say that the WMF is in the business of education.. Surely people
>>> get educated in this way.
>>>
>>> The problem is in two parts. How do we prevent an environment that is
>>> out of control ... (This is not specific to a conlang) and two, what does
>>> it take to prevent death by lack of attention in the future.
>>>
>>> The first is not really a problem we have a precedent whereby a project
>>> can be closed. The second does not need to be a problem when there is
>>> attention for its quality (also automated).
>>>
>>> So I am rather positive to allow for a change of heart.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>> On 1 February 2017 at 12:57, Jan van Steenbergen <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not a member of the Langcom, but I've been subscribed to this
>>> mailing list for quite a while now. Since my primary field of interest is
>>> constructed languages, let me tell you why I am inclined to support this
>>> request. Mind, I am in no way involved with LFN itself.
>>>
>>> My point of view is that there is only one criterion that should really
>>> matter for allowing a project to exist, namely the question: is it
>>> sustainable?
>>>
>>> At present, we have Wikipedias in seven constructed languages:
>>> Esperanto, Volapük, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Novial and
>>> Lojban. Of these, only Esperanto has native speakers, albeit an extremely
>>> low number compared to virtually all ethnic languages with a Wikipedia.
>>> Yet, the project is thriving. With >236,000 articles it is #32 on the list,
>>> which is more than Wikipedias in for example Greek, Danish, Bulgarian and
>>> Hindi. Ido and Interlingua (#98 and #109) are doing fine as well, in spite
>>> of the fact that both languages have no native speakers and less than a
>>> thousand users. The number of Volapük users is not more than a few dozens,
>>> but the "Vükiped" is doing reasonably well anyway. Even Interlingue seems
>>> to manage somehow, although its number of users (I always avoid the word
>>> "speakers" in the case of constructed languages) is probably less than ten.
>>>
>>> The only project that IMO has become a failure is Novial. Currently it
>>> has 1,644 articles. About 50 of them have some real critical mass, perhaps
>>> another 200 are more than just one or two lines of text, tables and
>>> infoboxes. After its foundation it had a few enthusiastic, active users,
>>> but they all seem to have vanished a long time ago. Since 2011 practically
>>> nothing has been happening over there. New articles still appear every once
>>> in a while, but most of these are the work of people who don't even know
>>> the language and just copy info from other articles, giving articles whose
>>> sole content is: "George Clooney is an American actor".
>>>
>>> Wikipedia projects in three other constructed languages have been closed
>>> in the past, for different reasons: Siberian because it turned out a hoax,
>>> Toki Poni because it is a minimalistic language with just ±120 words,
>>> Klingon because it is a work of fiction with a vocabulary too small for
>>> creating a viable project in it. For the same reason, Quenya and Sindarin
>>> are not suitable either.
>>>
>>> Anyway, compare all this to Wikipedias in African languages, for example
>>> Oromo: a major language with 60 million speakers, but only 726 articles,
>>> most of which are oneliners like "Germany is a country in Europe" or even
>>> empty. Where's the educational value in that?
>>>
>>> Speaking about educational value, I think this boils down to two things:
>>> communicating valuable content, and working with the language itself.
>>>
>>> When it comes to perusing Wikipedia because one is looking for info, a
>>> vast majority of the projects we have are quite unnecessary. Speakers of
>>> Bavarian, Luxemburgish, Rhaeto-Romance, Belarusian, Bashkir or Pennsylvania
>>> German won't be looking for information in their native language, they will
>>> look for info where they can find it, and in a language they speak
>>> fluently, i.e. in German, Russian, English etc. Wikipedias in languages
>>> like that serve an entirely different purpose: they offer a platform for
>>> generating content in a particular language, for practicing it, developing
>>> it, showcasing it. In other words, these projects are there for the sake of
>>> the language itself rather than the information presented in it.
>>>
>>> And in this respect, numbers of native speakers are completely
>>> irrelevant. Latin has no native speakers, but its Wikipedia is still a
>>> success. What really matters, in other words, is whether there are people
>>> willing to write in it and read in it.
>>>
>>> LFN is of more recent date than the other auxlang projects, but
>>> remarkably vivid nonetheless. I don't know if it really has 100 active
>>> users; numbers like that are notoriously difficult to verify, and the only
>>> persons who really have an idea about these figures are the same ones who
>>> have a vested interest in exaggerating them. But it is clear that there is
>>> a large number of people involved in it anyway, enough to generate quite
>>> some content. Of course, nobody knows what will happen when the author of
>>> the languages stops being involved with the language for whatever reason:
>>> it might go down the same road as Novial, but that would be a worst case
>>> scenario. In any case, the LFN wiki at Wikia (
>>> http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Paje_xef) has 3,774 pages at present, and
>>> keeps growing. Quite a lot of these pages are substantial articles, some of
>>> them having even more content than their equivalents in the major European
>>> languages. Obviously, not all pages could be moved to a Wikipedia in LFN,
>>> as they also contain translations of poetry and prose, but still, even at
>>> the very start this Wikipedia would be at a higher level than those in
>>> Interlingue, Novial, Volapük and Lojban. Not only in terms of numbers, but
>>> also in terms of substance and quality. So why not give it a chance?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jan van Steenbergen (User:IJzeren Jan)
>>>
>>> 2017-02-01 10:15 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > We had in the past really well functioning languages that were also
>>> shifted
>>> > to Wikia. It is all part and parcel of the original idea of the policy
>>> to
>>> > prevent the easy creation of new projects. This was needed because at
>>> the
>>> > time there was a groundswell of sentiment to prevent new projects all
>>> > together.
>>> >
>>> > When one member of the committee says "NO", it will not happen. Wen
>>> doubts
>>> > are raised it is not no. So please be clear what your intentions are.
>>>
>>> True. Here is my more precise position.
>>>
>>> My basic position is on the Amir's line: So weak against ("Wikia
>>> should be good enough") that I don't want to be the one who blocks it.
>>> However, for me it *is* mandatory to have a good reasoning in favor.
>>> That's why I asked Michael to make one. I see that as mandatory
>>> because of the future request.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny line, invisible from both sides, which differs
>>> relevant institutions from irrelevant ones. LangCom exists to keep
>>> Wikimedia relevant institution in relation to the languages. I would
>>> define relevancy as.
>>>
>>> We are still on the relevant side and LFN is one of the possible lines
>>> and we need to make a good decision here. And I have to say that what
>>> Amir's said about LFN doesn't sound promising at the moment.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing
>>> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
