headers
James Robert Johnson | 2 Apr 2008 13:39
Picon

standardizing a language

Hey everyone,

                I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
discussions, but I wanted to ask something.  Old English is a dead language,
yet has a living Wikipedia.  For this wiki, we essentially use Early West
Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling.  What
does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language,
as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon?  I welcome any
comments.

James
Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 2 Apr 2008 17:35
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

Hoi,
As Old English is dead language, a Wikipedia can only be created by
modifying the language with newly created words. This makes the language
different from what the language used to be. Standardising a dead language
by imposing a particular orthography in order to write new content in that
language also morphs the language into something that it never was.

There is a Wikipedia in Old English and I regret this.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM, James Robert Johnson <modean52@...>
wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
>                I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
> discussions, but I wanted to ask something.  Old English is a dead
> language,
> yet has a living Wikipedia.  For this wiki, we essentially use Early West
> Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling.
>  What
> does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language,
> as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon?  I welcome any
> comments.
>
>
>
> James
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike R | 2 Apr 2008 17:42
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:39 AM, James Robert Johnson
<modean52@...> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
>                 I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
>  discussions,

The word is "lurk." "Troll" means something else.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark Williamson | 2 Apr 2008 18:02
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

And I think that is what somebody else is doing on this thread.

The Old English Wikipedia exists, it is not going anywhere soon, so
let's stop criticising it, shall we?

Now, what is the standard for writing Old English within the scholarly
community? If there is no consensus, which system is the most widely
used? There is your answer.

Mark

On 02/04/2008, Mike R <tacodeposit@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:39 AM, James Robert Johnson
>  <modean52@...> wrote:
>
> > Hey everyone,
>  >
>  >                 I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
>  >  discussions,
>
>
> The word is "lurk." "Troll" means something else.
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Wikipedia-l mailing list
>  Wikipedia-l@...
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 2 Apr 2008 18:05
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson <modean52@...> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
>                 I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
>  discussions, but I wanted to ask something.  Old English is a dead language,
>  yet has a living Wikipedia.  For this wiki, we essentially use Early West
>  Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling.  What
>  does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language,
>  as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon?  I welcome any
>  comments.

If we're going to have an Old English Wikipedia, some level of
standardisation is probably required (although it's not essential to
always spell words the same - see the modern English Wikipedia's
policy on British English vs American English). However, such a
standardisation is inherently very difficult to achieve, which is one
of the reasons we don't create Wikipedia's for extinct languages any
more.

I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I
were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids
for people learning the language, you're not really creating an
encyclopaedia.
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Mark Williamson | 2 Apr 2008 18:17
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If
that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he
shouldn't.

Mark

On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson <modean52@...> wrote:
>  > Hey everyone,
>  >
>  >                 I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
>  >  discussions, but I wanted to ask something.  Old English is a dead language,
>  >  yet has a living Wikipedia.  For this wiki, we essentially use Early West
>  >  Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling.  What
>  >  does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language,
>  >  as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon?  I welcome any
>  >  comments.
>
>
> If we're going to have an Old English Wikipedia, some level of
>  standardisation is probably required (although it's not essential to
>  always spell words the same - see the modern English Wikipedia's
>  policy on British English vs American English). However, such a
>  standardisation is inherently very difficult to achieve, which is one
>  of the reasons we don't create Wikipedia's for extinct languages any
>  more.
>
>  I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I
>  were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids
>  for people learning the language, you're not really creating an
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 2 Apr 2008 18:21
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

On 02/04/2008, Mark Williamson <node.ue@...> wrote:
> Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If
>  that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he
>  shouldn't.

Why not? I don't see how creating that content furthers the aims of
Wikipedia, so why shouldn't I advise him against creating it?
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Amir E. Aharoni | 2 Apr 2008 18:24
Picon
Gravatar

Re: standardizing a language

2008/4/2, Mark Williamson <node.ue@...>:
> Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If
>  that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he
>  shouldn't.

The issue of extinct and constructed languages is one of the perennial
arguments in the Wikipedian culture.

You may find links to earlier discussions about it here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages

--

-- 
Amir Elisha Aharoni

English -  http://aharoni.wordpress.com
Hebrew  - http://haharoni.wordpress.com

"We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 2 Apr 2008 18:43
Picon

Re: standardizing a language

Hoi,
As far as the language committee is concerned, there is agreement that new
extinct languages will not be approved. The fact that they have been
approved before the language committee was started is the only reason why we
have an Old English Wikipedia. One of the best demonstrations why extinct
languages are so problematic is the "decision" of the Gothic Wikipedia to
write in the Latin script because otherwise it is so difficult. It clearly
shows how big a divide there is between what a language used to be and what
it becomes because of ill conceived ideas. The consequence is that reading
this travesty does not teach you at all to read historic texts and
consequently it does not add to the learning of the language and consequence
the reason for this Wikipedia is largely negated.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@...>
wrote:

> 2008/4/2, Mark Williamson <node.ue@...>:
> > Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If
> >  that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he
> >  shouldn't.
>
> The issue of extinct and constructed languages is one of the perennial
> arguments in the Wikipedian culture.
>
> You may find links to earlier discussions about it here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
>
> --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marc Riddell | 2 Apr 2008 18:47
Picon

Re: standardizing a language


> On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson <modean52@...> wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>> 
>> I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in
>> discussions, but I wanted to ask something.  Old English is a dead language,
>> yet has a living Wikipedia.  For this wiki, we essentially use Early West
>> Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling.  What
>> does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language,
>> as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon?  I welcome any
>> comments.
> 
on 4/2/08 12:05 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@... wrote:

> I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I
> were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids
> for people learning the language, you're not really creating an
> encyclopaedia.
> 
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually
advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.

Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.

Marc Riddell
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |

Gmane