Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I think we can put the blame on our use of
language code lists which
are
biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
An important observation. In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back
the argument that a wide assortment of conlangs are acceptable
because they have been granted a code.
Ec
Hoi,
Well actually, you are beating back the arrival of conlangs in the
English wiktionary. It is most definetly not universally accepted that
conlangs should not exist in a Wiktionary. When conlangs do not exist
exept for their occurance in a Wiktionary, that is another matter.
The only other place for some of them is in some small group's web site.
When the spelling of words is different according to
where they are
used, the words are definitly needed in both forms and they need to be
in a Wiktionary. Papiamento for instance has two distinct ways of
spelling. It would be stupid NOT to have both official spellings in a
Wiktionary. So when a language code marks a different way of
pronouncing or a different way of spelling, it has its place in
Wiktionary. In Wikipedia you can say things like "both can speak and
read their versions of a language" in a Wiktionary you represent the
existing spelling of words and you are not involved in judging if a
spelling is political correct or not.
I have never considered Papiamento to be a conlang.
In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user
preference that will
allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that
will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language
code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings.
There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly
relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules
that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling
from August 1 2006 onwards.
In English there is no such thing as an "official" spelling.