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 <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> 於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道： 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. 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. 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. wrote: by defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as nativelangs and conlangs, second language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first language speakers; and solve order to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely? 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. “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it? wrote: language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes. apply current policy and that will not change. possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense. and hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive 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. discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the current policy. not have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”, so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy. 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. expected to do. wrote: 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. identities 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. 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. politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will want you to ensure are mitigated. 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. _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org