[Foundation-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Thu Apr 17 15:04:03 UTC 2008

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said
>  at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
> and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I
>  can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to
>  himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him,
>  they have not "considered" his argument?

You've hit the nail on the head right there with your last statement,
and it describes
quite a few people on this list, I'm afraid. Gerard, your passion for
wanting to do this
correctly is admirable, I cannot deny that. However, at times you--and
many others,
on both sides of the debate--work yourselves into a posisition where
you only seem
to see "your" solution as "the" solution. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing, but it can
cause discussions to be frustrating at times. And to everyone, please
remember that
it's OK to be wrong! It's not a battle to be won, lives aren't lost
because people disagree
with you. I think if we all remember this a little more often and are
willing to say "You're
right, we should do it your way instead of mine," we can be a little
more productive. And
nicer.

>  I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I
>  asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10
>  or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I
>  asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me
>  add a qualifier or two:

Likewise. I would like to see the same information before I can accept
that this is a
realistic concern.

Always,

Chad

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular:
>
>  - The requirement of native speakers.
>  - Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular
>  view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this
>  will make the language they are writing from an historical language
>  into a conlang.
>
>  Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said
>  at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
>
> and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I
>  can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to
>  himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him,
>  they have not "considered" his argument?
>
>  I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I
>  asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10
>  or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I
>  asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me
>  add a qualifier or two:
>
>  1) Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original
>  corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can
>  rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney
>  Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is.
>  Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only
>  for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are
>  universals or close to it).
>  2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating
>  machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism.
>  Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a
>  living language).
>
>  With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a
>  neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am
>  not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are
>  arguing about something that is said to exist without even having
>  proof that it does.
>
>  Mark
>
>
>
>  On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
>  > Dear GerardM,
>  >  Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following
>  >  the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me.
>  >  So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in
>  >  Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are
>  >  "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed.
>  >  And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them.
>  >  When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as
>  >  done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't
>  >  remember by heart the exact list):
>  >  - publications
>  >  - conventions
>  >  - codification by dictionaries, grammars
>  >  - sociological or political diversification of the language community
>  >  - family language
>  >  According to that, Blanke divides into:
>  >  - Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
>  >  - Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
>  >  only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
>  >  - Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
>  >  others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
>  >
>  >  Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen,
>  >  1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will
>  >  make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close
>  >  to the language community (language and culture, history of the region,
>  >  maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range,
>  >  like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology.
>  >  On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
>  >  1) and 2).
>  >  On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
>  >
>  >  From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of
>  >  Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an
>  >  ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss.
>  >  One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there
>  >  a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major
>  >  difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This
>  >  criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but
>  >  would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who
>  >  merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
>  >
>  >  Ziko
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  >    - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
>  >  >    - We need full WMF localisation from the start
>  >  >    - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
>  >  >    encyclopaedia
>  >  >    - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
>  >  >    demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide
>  >  > range of
>  >  >    topics
>  >  >    - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
>  >  >    project
>  >  >
>  >  > Thanks,
>  >  >       GerardM
>  >  > _______________________________________________
>  >  > foundation-l mailing list
>  >  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  >  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  >  Ziko van Dijk
>  >  Roomberg 30
>  >  NL-7064 BN Silvolde
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  >  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
>