[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia again

Tue Feb 22 07:44:10 UTC 2005

> 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.

> 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