[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for the personal attacks.. They make me look good.

What people do in any language is not the remit of the language committee.
The period of Erasmus, More and Newton is before the date the Wikimedia
language policy was enacted. Everything before that time is not part of the
remit of the language committee.. You may like to know that new
taxonomic descriptions may still be written in Latin and English.

As to Pāṇini [1], read the article, it is not unlikely that he spoke and
wrote Sanskrit on a daily basis. My first thoughts about a Wikipedia in
Sanskrit would be about the NPOV...

How languages are used is not relevant to the WMF language policy nor its
language committee. What is relevant is that the language used has to be
appropriate for a general purpose encyclopaedia.and has as its intended
public people who will find encyclopaedic information in their language.
That is the scope of a Wikipedia and it is of a higher order than what the
language policy or committee is there for.

You noted that I do not pronounce on the likelihood of new projects. That
is not up to me, it is up to the entirety of the language committee in the
face of a bona fide proposal. The reason why the committee works so well is
because so many points of view are expressed.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 18:34, Jim Killock  wrote:

> (I note Gerard hasn’t answered the question about new Latin projects, so I
> assume these are denied under the current policy.)
>
> I think the argument that "*People may bastardise a dead language and
> come up with anything*" is quite flimsy, if I may say.
>
> Back to the 99.99% of Latin, Sanskrit and Classical Chinese that will be
> written outside their Classic period, by second langauge authors, *they
> will be full of non-Classical neologisms.*
>
> By Gerard’s formula, Erasmus, Newton and More were writing “bastardised”
> Latin which would be unacceptable for a Wikimedia project.
>
> Panini presumably is even worse because he constructed new grammatical
> forms for Sanskrit, invalidating nearly the entire Sanskrit corpus.
>
> Has Langcom every consulted with any users about the way that these
> languages are used? Because it does not feel like it.
>
> From that perspective the currrent process could be an ideal chance to
> gain some more knowldge and accomodate these languages in a sensible manner.
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2021, at 15:35, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
> not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
> analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
> are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
> and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
> Quran is well defined and is static.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick  wrote:
>
>> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
>> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
>> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
>> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
>> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
>> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
>> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
>> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
>> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
>> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
>> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
>> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
>> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
>> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
>> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
>> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
>> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
>> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>> >>
>> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>> >>>
>> >>> Hoi,
>> >>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek
>> a solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule
>> bases they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the
>> world is better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what
>> languages fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Phake Nick]

Why would you describe such practice as "bastardise a dead language",
instead of for example, "language revitalization effort"?

The Arabic of the Quran wasn't just a historical language, but also a
language of a specific form and function written for a particular purpose
in some similar ways. That's like saying we cannot recreate and add new
words into "Shakespeare's English", which of course we cannot, but of all
the ancient languages being granted ISO codes, like for example those that
are precedents of modern English, none of them were as narrowly defined as
"Shakespeare's English".

在 2021年9月22日週三 22:36，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：

> Hoi,
> People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
> not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
> analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
> are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
> and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
> Quran is well defined and is static.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick  wrote:
>
>> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
>> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
>> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
>> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
>> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
>> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
>> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
>> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
>> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
>> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
>> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
>> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
>> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
>> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
>> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
>> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
>> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
>> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>> >>
>> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>> >>>
>> >>> Hoi,
>> >>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek
>> a solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule
>> bases they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the
>> world is better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what
>> languages fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to
>> new terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me
>> it means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>> >>>
>> >>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>GerardM
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  Dear Gerard and Committee
>> 
>>  Given that
>> 
>>  consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
>> by defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as
>> nativelangs  and conlangs,
>>  this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven
>> second language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
>> language speakers; and
>>  this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>> solve
>> 
>> 
>>  as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in
>> order to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
>> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?
>> 
>>  Classical languages
>>  The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
>> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
>> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
>> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
>> for new Wikis in these languages.
>> 
>> 
>>  For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit
>> “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>> 
>> 
>>  On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>> 
>>  Signed PGP part
>>  Der Gerard
>> 
>>  On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  Hoi,
>>  I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
Quran is well defined and is static.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick  wrote:

> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>
> Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
> >>
> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
> >>
> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
> >>>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
> >>>
> >>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>GerardM
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:
> 
>  Dear Gerard and Committee
> 
>  Given that
> 
>  consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved by
> defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as
> nativelangs  and conlangs,
>  this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven
> second language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
> language speakers; and
>  this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to solve
> 
> 
>  as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order
> to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?
> 
>  Classical languages
>  The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
> for new Wikis in these languages.
> 
> 
>  For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit
> “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
> 
> 
>  On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
> 
>  Signed PGP part
>  Der Gerard
> 
>  On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> 
>  Hoi,
>  I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing
> language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
> 
> 
>  Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to
> apply
> 
>  Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
> current policy and that will not change.
> 
> 
>  However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
> 
>  When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
> arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
> 
> 
>  It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy
> and hope they are granted an exception, especially when this 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Phake Nick]

What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
wikiprojects written in such ancient language.

Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
>
> Hoi,
> Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its Wikipedia 
> already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or essays in 
> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language, it is 
> not eligible for a Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
>>
>> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new terms in 
>> Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species name, which 
>> is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and being used 
>> around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language mean it cannot 
>> accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead language. But 
>> people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay in Classical 
>> Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new vocabulary that 
>> didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot see how that's not 
>> acceptable for ancient languages.
>>
>> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a 
>>> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases 
>>> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is 
>>> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages 
>>> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new 
>>> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it 
>>> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>>>
>>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:

 Dear Gerard and Committee

 Given that

 consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved by 
 defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as 
 nativelangs  and conlangs,
 this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven second 
 language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first language 
 speakers; and
 this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to solve


 as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to 
 solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable 
 with this below, and if so, what precisely?

 Classical languages
 The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese 
 and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of 
 second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and 
 their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new 
 Wikis in these languages.


 For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient 
 Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?


 On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:

 Signed PGP part
 Der Gerard

 On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen  
 wrote:

 Hoi,
 I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language 
 policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.


 Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply

 Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the current 
 policy and that will not change.


 However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the 
 possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask

 When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided arguments 
 and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.


 It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and 
 hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily 
 fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive

 The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against 
 ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of 
 defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of 
 the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the 
 introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new 
 terminology a Wikipedia by 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:

> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new terms
> in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species name,
> which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and being
> used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language mean it
> cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>
> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>
>> Hoi,
>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
>> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
>> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
>> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
>> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
>> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
>> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>>
>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gerard and Committee
>>>
>>> Given that
>>>
>>>1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be
>>>solved by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the
>>>same status as nativelangs  and conlangs,
>>>2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
>>>second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of
>>>first language speakers; and
>>>3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>>>solve
>>>
>>>
>>> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order
>>> to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
>>> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>>>
>>> *Classical languages*
>>> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
>>> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
>>> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
>>> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
>>> for new Wikis in these languages.
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
>>> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> Der Gerard
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing
>>> language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>>>
>>>
>>>- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>>>current policy and that will not change.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
>>> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>>>
>>>
>>>- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>>>arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
>>> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
>>> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>>>
>>>
>>>- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating
>>>against ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux 
>>> of
>>>defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus 
>>> of
>>>the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
>>>introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
>>>terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
>>>
>>> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
>>> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
>>> current policy.
>>>
>>> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not
>>> have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”,
>>> so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
>>> waste of time. 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Phake Nick]

Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new terms
in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species name,
which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and being
used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language mean it
cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.

在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：

> Hoi,
> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>
> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>> Dear Gerard and Committee
>>
>> Given that
>>
>>1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
>>by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the same
>>status as nativelangs  and conlangs,
>>2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
>>second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of
>>first language speakers; and
>>3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>>solve
>>
>>
>> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to
>> solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable
>> with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>>
>> *Classical languages*
>> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese
>> and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of
>> second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and
>> their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis
>> in these languages.
>>
>>
>> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
>> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>>
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>
>> Signed PGP part
>> Der Gerard
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
>> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>>
>>
>> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>>
>>
>>- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>>current policy and that will not change.
>>
>>
>> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
>> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>>
>>
>>- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>>arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>>
>>
>> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
>> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
>> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>>
>>
>>- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating
>>against ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux 
>> of
>>defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
>>the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
>>introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
>>terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
>>
>> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
>> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
>> current policy.
>>
>> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not
>> have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”,
>> so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
>> waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
>> way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
>> pictures in Commons in the language they know.
>>
>> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
>> do.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Committee,
>>>
>>> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
means that it explains how the existing policy operates.

You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Gerard and Committee
>
> Given that
>
>1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
>by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the same
>status as nativelangs  and conlangs,
>2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
>second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
>language speakers; and
>3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>solve
>
>
> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to
> solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable
> with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>
> *Classical languages*
> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese
> and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of
> second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and
> their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis
> in these languages.
>
>
> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>
>
> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>
>
>- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>current policy and that will not change.
>
>
> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>
>
>- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>
>
> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>
>
>- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
>ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
>defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
>the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
>introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
>terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
>
> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
> current policy.
>
> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not
> have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”,
> so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>
>
>
> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
> waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
> way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
> pictures in Commons in the language they know.
>
> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
> do.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>> Dear Committee,
>>
>> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
>> limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
>> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
>> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
>> There are two options along these lines
>> 
>>  at
>> the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>>
>> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
>> 
>>
>> *Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
>> identities*
>>
>> *The proposal seeks to lower 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Dear Gerard and Committee

Given that
consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved by defining 
a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as nativelangs  and 
conlangs,
this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven second language 
vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first language speakers; and
this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to solve

as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to solve 
it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable with this 
below, and if so, what precisely?

Classical languages
The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese and 
Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of 
second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and their 
cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis in these 
languages.


For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient 
Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?


> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
> 
>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hoi,
>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language 
>> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
> 
> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
> 
>> Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the current 
>> policy and that will not change.
> 
> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the possibility 
> of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>> When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided arguments 
>> and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
> 
> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and hope 
> they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily fixed, viz 
> Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
> 
>> The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against ethnic 
>> and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of defining a 
>> language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of the language 
>> is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the introduction of new 
>> terminology. If a language does not have room for new terminology a 
>> Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of 
> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the 
> current policy.
> 
> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not have 
> room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”, so I 
> believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
> 
> 
> 
>> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a 
>> waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive 
>> way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find 
>> pictures in Commons in the language they know.
>> 
>> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to do.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock > > wrote:
>> Dear Committee,
>> 
>> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very limited 
>> and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical 
>> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with 
>> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage. 
>> There are two options along these lines 
>> 
>>  at the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>> 
>> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble 
>> 
>> 
>> Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious identities
>> 
>> The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against 
>> people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by 
>> placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The 
>> importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be seen 
>> regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical 
>> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox 
>> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the languages 
>> of most important theological debates.
>> 
>> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from 
>> the current policy 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Der Gerard

> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language 
> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.

Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply

> Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the current 
> policy and that will not change.

However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the possibility of 
other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
> When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided arguments and 
> we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.

It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and hope 
they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily fixed, viz 
Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive

> The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against ethnic 
> and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of defining a 
> language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of the language 
> is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the introduction of new 
> terminology. If a language does not have room for new terminology a Wikipedia 
> by definition does not serve its purpose.
On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of discrimination 
regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the current policy.

On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not have 
room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”, so I 
believe you are arguing to change the current policy.



> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a waste 
> of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive way, he 
> could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find pictures in 
> Commons in the language they know.
> 
> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to do.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  > wrote:
> Dear Committee,
> 
> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very limited 
> and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical 
> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with 
> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage. 
> There are two options along these lines 
> 
>  at the RFC, which seems stable to me.
> 
> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble 
> 
> 
> Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious identities
> 
> The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against 
> people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by 
> placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The 
> importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be seen 
> regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical 
> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox 
> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the languages 
> of most important theological debates.
> 
> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from the 
> current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which is a 
> Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be 
> interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by 
> Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is 
> dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and 
> unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something which 
> of course it does have.
> 
> Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu politics, 
> these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will want you to 
> ensure are mitigated.
> 
> I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did 
> not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of the 
> current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to any 
> particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration,
> 
> Jim
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
> 
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> 
> 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.

   - Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
   current policy and that will not change.
   - When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
   arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
   - The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
   ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
   defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
   the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
   introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
   terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.

For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
pictures in Commons in the language they know.

In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
do.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Committee,
>
> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
> limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
> There are two options along these lines
> 
>  at
> the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
> 
>
> *Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
> identities*
>
> *The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against
> people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by
> placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The
> importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be
> seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical
> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox
> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the
> languages of most important theological debates.*
>
>
> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from
> the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which
> is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be
> interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by
> Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is
> dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and
> unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something
> which of course it does have.
>
> Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu
> politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will
> want you to ensure are mitigated.
>
> I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did
> not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of
> the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to
> any particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
>
> Jim
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Dear Committee,

I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very limited 
and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical Languages, 
where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with proven methods 
of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage. There are two 
options along these lines 

 at the RFC, which seems stable to me.

I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble 


Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious identities

The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against people 
with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by placing an 
absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The importance of Ancient 
Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be seen regarding to Sanskrit 
for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical Chinese for Buddhism. Latin 
and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants 
in differing ways, being the languages of most important theological debates.

There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from the 
current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which is a 
Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be 
interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by 
Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is 
dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and 
unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something which 
of course it does have.

Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu politics, 
these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will want you to 
ensure are mitigated.

I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did not 
have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of the 
current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to any 
particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jim


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org