Hi all I suggest to don’t consider “Latin” an ancient language for the simple reason that is still “officially” used as “lingua franca” in some institutions like the catholic church.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/world/vatican-introduces-latin-to-21st-century-with-new-dictionary.html I can assure that in several catholic schools and universities and in the “formal” communication the latin is written, read and spoken (yes, spoken). When Benedict XVI resigned, he did his announcement only in latin: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/urgent-pope-announces-resignation-on.html I think that we must consider a language “ancient” only when is not used in “formal” linguistic registers and doesn’t have an evolution, so it’s basically “frozen”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) But if an institution like the catholic church continues to keep it updated to translate “new words”, is not ancient anymore. Latin must be kept updated in order to write something like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical and to have it as the “official language” of the legal codes of the Vatican (https://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_codex.html). So this discussion may not have a sense for Latin exactly because Latin users may consider it a form of “discrimination” of a minority of users 😉 while Wikiverse should be inclusive. Kind regards -- Ilario Valdelli Education Program Manager and Community liaison Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch From: Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]> Sent: 09 September 2021 05:58 To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <[email protected]> Subject: [Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy I don't support these proposed changes. The discussion mentions the "success" of Latin. What makes it successful? The fact that some people write there? But who reads it? I'm not talking just about numbers; I'm talking about *who* these people are. And how does it contribute to creating a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge? The discussion mentions that it's not right that there are policy differences between ancient languages and constructed (or artificial) languages, being less strict with the latter. It's indeed not quite right, but it should go the other way around: the policy could be changed to be more strict with them. The support for Kotava (and LFN) in the Language committee was not as enthusiastic as the discussion says it was. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore בתאריך יום ג׳, 7 בספט׳ 2021 ב-13:40 מאת Jim Killock <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Dear LangCom, I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar position. You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes an auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be revisited<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Discussion>. After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages which are historic, learnt, but in use. I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your archives, which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach while constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but an ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed. This I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for which a discussion is still open. I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless, in some important exceptions, where there is a credibly large enough number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external usage of that language,, these languages could be allowed without opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy. I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest. Thank you for your time, Jim Definition of ancient or historic language[edit<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=12>] 1. For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an ancient or historic language is one which 1. Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works; 2. Is typically acquired by formal learning; 3. Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and documented while the language was in common usage; 4. May or may not not be used in modern linguistic domains, such as: trade; education; academic discourse; music; poetry; religious discourse; etc. Qualification of an ancient or historic language for a Wiki project[edit<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=13>] The same basic eligibility criteria should apply in a similar but somewhat stricter manner than artificial languages, recognising that acquisition is likely to be harder than is typical for constructed languages, but also that acquisition may be more common and resources more developed; and also that practical usage is likely to be lower than for many contemporary natively-acquired languages. Therefore I propose that: 1. Wikis are allowed in ancient or historical languages despite having no native speakers; although these should be on a wiki for the most widely used form of the language, when possible; 2. There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language; 3. There should be a significant historical corpus and usage for modern authors to draw upon, for instance, a large volume of extant texts or a large volume of recordings, sufficient to understand the idiom as well as the grammar of the language; whether generated as an auxiliary language, domain specific language or a native language; 4. The language must have a reasonable degree of contemporary usage as determined by discussion. (Some recognition criteria include, but are not limited to: independently proved number of speakers or writers, use as an auxiliary or domain-specific language outside of online communities created solely for the purpose, usage outside of Wikimedia, publication of works in the language for general sale, publication of academic papers in the language, availability of courses or training which aim at fluent compositional or oral usage.) _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
