On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:44:10 +0800, Sheng Jiong <sheng.jiong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If anything,
Singlish
is less mutually intelligible with "standard English" than either Scots
or Ulster Scots are. The main difference seems to be that, while the
Scottish government wishes to promote the use of Scots as a legitimate
language, the Singaporean government takes the opposite view of Singlish.
I do not think that it is entirely due to the view of the government.
There is also strong opposition within the country, among the ordinary
speakers of the language. People have gotten used to the thinking that
"when I write, I should use standard English; when I speak to a fellow
Singaporean, there is no need to be so formal". Before they begin to
change their mindsets and decide to write in the way they usually talk
(as China experienced in 1910s and 20s, and many other countries too.
And I personally see it as a result of the increasing nationalistic
feelings), should Wikipedia recognise the language so fast? The
potential danger is the undermining of our credibility.
Well, for Wikipedia, I think beside of the factor of such
"credibility" (although for myself, I could never imagine how allowing
versions less written could reduce people's confidence in the whole
project; I'd guess that such crisis of confidence occurs when people
have their own despise and discrimination towards such languages),
"freedon" and "toleration" are also what make it different and
revolutionary from "traditional" encyclopediae. While the
incredibility and doubt of some people (in fact most people don't even
knew that there ARE significant distinction among Chinese languages in
both verbal and text form; they just need to be educated and most of
the time would listen and recognize, unless they were too stubborn to
admit.) may make them view Wikipedia "lower" and "less credible", but
Wikipedia would also benefit from hosting and sponsoring these
versions. If they work, MORE THAN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people WILL
be grateful to the Wikimedia foundation. Don't only look upon the
presence (especially when the presence is not so pessimistic as have
been described), think about the future development and the spirit of
Wikipedia.
I guess this
brings up the question of how we distinguish between
these. Should we care what the relevant governments think?
Indeed. Wikipedia used to take ISO 639 as a guideline for the setting
up of Wikipedias. But now this has apparently been abandoned, and it
becomes harder for us to determine really a written language does
exist.
formulax
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
2005, make signs happen!