Pardon me for intervening in your proceedings, but Byzantine Koine Greek has
always been spoken in the Greek Orthodox church in liturgy and admin and
documents can be found in Greek that are from many centuries later as well and
it also has this history of innovation. It really isn't a different case
between Greek and Latin. Also both languages are constantly being used for
creating new words in English and other languages, particularly when it comes
to science related terms. Furthermore, there is use of ancient Greek in modern
contexts too, e.g. an up to date news website in ancient Greek at
[http://www.akwn.net/ ](http://www.akwn.net/) that has been going for 10+
years, or the Harry potter translation at
https://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Philosophers-Ancient-Edition/dp/158234826X,
examples which showcase that the language can certainly be used for creating
new material.
Best regards,
George T.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Lingua Franca Nova
Local Time: February 7, 2017 5:36 AM
UTC Time: February 7, 2017 5:36 AM
From: [email protected]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <[email protected]>
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 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_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
