On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:39 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de>
schrieb:
Yes, I agree that conlangs are the more serious
problem than natural
languages. However, I don't think that there should be no criteria at
all
for natural languages. The three criteria that Andre proposed - ISO
639-2,
more than 50 archived documents, or more than 10,000 speakers - seem
reasonable, and would probably kick out most obscure conlangs, while
leaving in legitimate spoken tongues, and dead languages too, if
there's a
written record of them (not that I care at all about those, but in the
interest of wikipeace ..).
Actually, I think these might be too inclusive when looking at dead
languages. While I am all for the Latin Wikipedia, and would not mind
a Sanskrit one, Hittite or Sumerian are another matter. Many dead
languages are only in passive use, and to exclude those, I would
like to restrict ourselves to those languages in which (new) documents
have been written within the last 50 years or so.
I agree instinctively with your point, but I must ask: why exactly? If
a group
of speakers can maintain a Wikipedia in that language, isn't that
requirement
enough? Contrast this issue to that of Klingon, where some have made
the
argument that seeing "Klingon" (or tlh... whatever) at the top of
certain pages
might be offensive. I can't think of a good reason why not to let
people have a
go at Sumerian if they feel up to it. If it never gets big it takes up
that
much less room. :) If it's a substantial burden on Brion and others
though,
then that's a good answer to my question.
Peter
-- ---<>--- --
A house without walls cannot fall.
Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at
Wikipedia.org
-- ---<>--- --