Donning my lapsed hellenist hat for a moment, I i will note that the dialect most likely to see contributions in, in [grc], would be *classical Attic Greek*. (That is the Greek of the philosophers and the dramatists, but not of Homer, Herodotus, the lyric poets, etc.) It is the best-documented dialect of [grc], and the one most commonly taught at schools and in classics departments. Some students also learn Homeric. Far fewer ever gain a working proficiency (beyond reading) in Ionic, Doric, or the other dialects.
Since there are no native speakers, any [grc] wiki would be maintained by L2 hobbyists and scholars, like the Latin Wikipedia. That's why the most taught dialect is important. (Personally, although I am grc-3 (and la-3), I am not interested in contributing to Wikipedias in those languages. I am about sharing knowledge in languages people actually consume knowledge in, rather than practicing my classical grammar.) A. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:00 AM Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm - I'm afraid I cannot agree with your depiction of such a categorical > difference between Latin and Classical Greek. > Let's start with Latin: According to Pei (1976) and Herman (1996), Latin > was displaced gradually in spoken form between 400-700; it was in > official use up to the first decades of the 19th century [as] the language > of research and philosophy in Europe, although Latin was not the native > tongue for any group of people during this time; by AD 1000, Latin's > daughter languages Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Provençal, French, > Italian, Rheto-Romance, and Rumanian were all firmly established as native > languages of Southern Europe, to the exclusion of Latin as a first language > (!). > > Now to Classical Greek: The two strands of [grc] would be Ancient Greek > (starting with Homer etc) and Koine Greek (the language of the New > Testament); please note that Ethnologue subsumes Classical Greek and Koine > Greek as dialects of "Ancient Greek". The history of the Greek language > (cf. Horrocks 2009) actually bears out almost a tug-of-war between the more > literary Classical and the more colloquial Koine, including the movement of > Atticism in Byzantine times, and its grip on Katharevousa over the last two > centuries, where Classical Greek finally "lost out" to Demotic only 40 > years ago in modern Greece. Also, Koine Greek is just as "alive" in the > Orthodox Church as Latin was in the Catholic Church up to Vatican II (cf. > the discussion at http://orthodoxoutpost.com/?p=164). > > My conclusion: Latin and Classical Greek are very comparable in their > history, development and language use, including the fact that both are > dead languages now, and both are still vehicles of (more or less > successful) communication in their respective churches. Hence, I cannot > support a decision to grant a wikipedia to one and deny it to another - > especially if there are communities willing and able to guarantee and > demonstrate the success of their wikipedia. > > - Herman, Jozsef. “The End of the History of Latin” *Romance Philology*. > 49:4 (1996) pp364-382. > - Horrocks, Geoffrey. *Greek: A History of the Language and its > Speakers*. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. > - Pei, Mario. *The Story of Latin and the Romance Languages*. Harper & > Row: New York, 1976. > > Fwiw, > Oliver > > On 07-Feb-17 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > 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 > [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
