One could draw that conclusion, but far be it from me to step on sacred
toes ... even extinct ones. :-)
Ec
GerardM wrote:
Considering what you say, you provide a perfect
argument why NOT to localise
the user interface of an extinct language. So far we have always insisted on
a localised UI.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/11/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>2007/7/5, GerardM:
>>
>>
>>>In the language committee we are not really happy with artificial languages
>>>
>>>
>>>or with languages long dead that are given a new lease of life because
"we
>>>
>>>
>>>can". In dead languages you have to do original research in order to be
able
>>>
>>>
>>>to name the concepts that are modern and foreign to that language as we know
>>>
>>>
>>>it. Wikipedia is not about original research and you have to create new
>>>words and in the process change the language in order to write an
>>>encyclopaedia that is to be used in this day and age.
>>>
>>>
>At one time I had an old medical dictionary (ca. 1820), and the entry
>for "cadaver" started with "A cadaver is generally immobile."
>Immobility for these dead languages means that they are no longer able
>to move, and generate new life. We cannot expect that the new
>terminology that we invent for it will be accepted by the people who
>normally speak that language, because those people don't exist. Our
>newly invented words do not rise above the level of fantasy. The
>resulting encyclopedia is indeed to be used in this day and age, but
>only by people who do not exist.
>