[Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?

Sun Apr 6 05:15:39 UTC 2008

We've had this discussion, and your best rebuttal to my argument was
that Navajo is not an extinct language... that is a logical fallacy,
you did not argue successfully or even at all against the idea of
using descriptive phrases rather than creating new words to refer to
new concepts. Instead, you continued to rail on against ancient
languages.

Mark

On 05/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  The argument against new wikipedias in extinct or ancient languages is that
>  as a consequence of their status new vocabulary prevents the writing of a
>  modern encyclopaedia. With the creation of neologisms you change the
>  language to the extend that it no longer IS that language.
>
>  This has nothing to do with the relevance of the language but everything
>  with the historic accuracy of that language. People that read all this
>  modern terminology will expect that as a consequence they are learning the
>  language while in fact they will not truly do this. Latin is in my opinion
>  different in that it has seen continued use and the Vatican does publish a
>  dictionary with neologisms (new in relation to the classical Latin).
>
>  When it can be proven that there has been a continued use, it would not
>  surprise me that this is true for Sanskrit, I would personally re-evaluate
>  my position and consider an exception to this rule.
>  Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>  On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever at yahoo.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>  > I noticed that the present discussion started  as an answer to the
>  > rejection of the ancient greek wikipedia. and i haven't seen a hard defence
>  > like this project.
>  >  i think is due to the ancient greek is always a special case. as the
>  > quote of Edward Sapir found   in the classical language article of
>  > wikipedia; the ancient greek is with latin, classical chinese, arabic and
>  > sanskrit is the foundation of all the culture of the whole world,
>  > and the modern world refers to them, all the time.
>  >
>  > I ask to the subcommitte:
>  >
>  >  if the discussion provide good reason to the project of ancient language.
>  > it's possible a reconsideration of the rejection of ancient greek Wikipedia,
>  > and others projects of ancient language like classical japanese or ottomanic
>  > turkish that were proposed, too?.
>  >
>  > J. case
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  ____________________________________________________________________________________
>  > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
>  > Total Access, No Cost.
>  > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>