[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Tue Oct 17 12:04:35 UTC 2006

I forward proposer letter:
============================
Hello,
The question about Latgalian being a dialect or a language is still a topic
for endless public and also academic discussions.

Researches made by linguistics professors (Breidaks, Leikuma, Stafecka,
Toporov etc.) have shown that Latgalian and Latvian may be considered
separate languages in terms of all structural levels of the languages
(phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, syntax).

Consequently, this is a problem of Latvian majority being ready or not to
accept use of Latgalian as a regional language. Some of the facts described
below show that Latgalian has more features of a languages than those of a
dialect.

Latgalian was taught as a separate language in schools of Latvia (until
1934, before authoritarian regime) and in Russia (until 1937, before mass
exterminations of intelectuals of minority nations).  Nowadays, Latgalian is
taught at schools as an optional course, however, Association of Latgalian
Teachers make regular efforts to obtain support from the government for
teaching Latgalian.

Three Universities (University of Latvia, Daugavpils University and Rezekne
Higher education istitutions) offer an optional course of Latgalian language
and literature.

The Latgalian literary tradition has started in early 18 century. Total
number of books published in Latgalian language reaches approx. 2000.  About
150 Latgalian books were published in Latgalian since 1988, when the
cultural revival movement started (i. e., after Soviet era)

Latgalian Radio ("Latgolys radeja") currently broadcasts in Latgalian
language only.

There are 2 community portals in Latgalian only (www.latgola.lv,
www.atzolys.lv) and a few more in both Latvian and Latgalian.

I would like to emphasize that a dialect in linguistics means a variety of
language which exists, first of all, in its free spoken form, which is not
standardized . Latgalians, however, use the written standard, which has a
long history and is being revised and confirmed by Latgalian Language
Commission on regular basis.

Furthermore, the code "bat-ltg" was assigned to test version of Latgalian
about a year ago, and I think, there should be a consistency in decisions
concerning the community of Latgalian Wkipedia. Thank you.

Regards,
Armands
(Stiernits from Latgalian Wikipedia)

2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on
> the
> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
> considered
> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
> difference and that we can do as we like.
>
> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
>
> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to
> do
> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
>
> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When
> this
> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
> and work on amending the practices where needed.
>
> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic
> one.
> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO
> and
> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
> >
> > While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
> > have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
> > Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
> >
> > In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
> > bat-smg, and map-bms.
> >
> > This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
> > considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
> > Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
> >
> > We are not perfect.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
> > have
> > > iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
> > iso,
> > > too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
> When
> > > Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
> best
> > > code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
> > proposer.
> > > I'll tell him.
> > >
> > > Arns
> > >
> > > 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > There are two issues.
> > > > * What/ is/ the code for the moment
> > > > * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
> > > >
> > > > People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect
> of
> > > > Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
> because
> > > > this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
> > have
> > > > 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
> > > > improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
> > become
> > > > part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
> > am
> > > > afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
> > Latvian.
> > > > I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
> are
> > > > in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
> > what
> > > > it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
> > around.
> > > > There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
> > > > instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
> > > > after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
> > Florentine.
> > > > The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is
> a
> > > > lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
> for
> > > > Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
> > > >
> > > > When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to
> us
> > > > to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
> > > > have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
> > > > stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these
> is
> > to
> > > > demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
> > Latgalian
> > > > to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
> > literature
> > > > and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be
> a
> > > > Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
> > > >
> > > > FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
> > used
> > > > to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a
> grammar
> > it
> > > > is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
> > > > Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
> > > > societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage
> I
> > > > am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
> > not
> > > > stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
> > > > case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
> > > > Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
> > imho
> > > > is a complete misnomer.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >    GerardM
> > > >
> > > > Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > > > > latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in
> 1918-1944
> > > > second
> > > > > official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
> > It's
> > > > > dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
> > > > >
> > > > > Arns
> > > > >
> > > > > 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hoi,
> > > > >> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
> > > > however
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
> > > > >> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>    GerardM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hoi,
> > > > >>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
> > my
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >> point
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
> > proposed
> > > > >>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be
> something
> > > > like
> > > > >>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> There's a test wiki at
> > http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
> > > > >>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Angela
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
> > > :)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

-- 
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)