Klingon Wiktionary closed

[Brion Vibber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/

As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a
site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed.
As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.

The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER

It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better
hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?

If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGDe96wRnhpk1wk44RApOyAKCCfGg5T8QbmIplUpZt8rfixdza6gCcClGT
iaxAkmqlLd+T6/tBUXoY4s8=
=Fuk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[elisabeth anderl]

What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
You might want to lock all invented languages then.
The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
reason for closing that wikt.
Please have a look at the statements here
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164

The reason to reopen it is:
It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
of that kind.
Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
languages sites not closed.

Thanks,
best regards,
Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy

Brion Vibber escribió:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
> the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
>
> As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a
> site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
> Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed.
> As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
> would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
>
> The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
> was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
> http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
> purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better
> hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
>
> If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
> hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
>
> - -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGDe96wRnhpk1wk44RApOyAKCCfGg5T8QbmIplUpZt8rfixdza6gCcClGT
> iaxAkmqlLd+T6/tBUXoY4s8=
> =Fuk4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl <n9502784@...> wrote:

> What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
> Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
> You might want to lock all invented languages then.
> The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
> reason for closing that wikt.
> Please have a look at the statements here
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
>
> The reason to reopen it is:
> It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
> of that kind.
> Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
> wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
> languages sites not closed.

One can't dismiss all constructed languages out of hand. Esperanto,
for one, has an ISO 639 code (1, 2, and 3) and has a signficant level
of usage. Several other constructed languages come close to this.

Despite Klingon not being the same in terms of real-world usage, I'm
not sure what harm such projects do. If they bring people to Wikimedia
who wouldn't otherwise be here, then they are good.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl <n9502784@...> wrote:

> What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
> Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
> You might want to lock all invented languages then.
> The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
> reason for closing that wikt.
> Please have a look at the statements here
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
>
> The reason to reopen it is:
> It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
> of that kind.
> Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
> wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
> languages sites not closed.
>
> Thanks,
> best regards,
> Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
>
> Brion Vibber escribió:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
> > the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
> >
> > As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a
> > site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
> > Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed.
> > As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
> > would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
> >
> > The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
> > was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
> > http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
> >
> > It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
> > purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better
> > hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
> >
> > If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
> > hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.

Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too.
If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting
their right to have a project?

ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been
constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we
acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one
language but suggest this is not important for another.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
The closure of the tlh.wikipedia was announced by Jimmy Wales at Wikimania
.. The room cheered and thought it a good idea. This was before the
lanuguage committee was started.

When you read the phrasing about languages, you will find that an ISO-639
code is a requirement. This does however not imply at all that it guarantees
the creation of a project. With the ISO-639-6 it is likely that there will
be a code for the American orthography (among others) for the English
language. This will not imply at all that it will be ok to split the English
language Wikipedia.

Having two projects for Belarus is a really bad situation.  For me the
only reasonable
outcome would be when the two projects merge.

The existence of new policies does not imply that they will be retroactively
applied. When this is thought to be unfair, I do agree, it is often not
fair.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@...> wrote:

>
> On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl <n9502784@...> wrote:
> > What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
> > Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
> > You might want to lock all invented languages then.
> > The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
> > reason for closing that wikt.
> > Please have a look at the statements here
> > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
> >
> > The reason to reopen it is:
> > It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
> > of that kind.
> > Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
> > wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
> > languages sites not closed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > best regards,
> > Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
> >
> > Brion Vibber escribió:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
> > > the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
> > >
> > > As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such
> a
> > > site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
> > > Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was
> closed.
> > > As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
> > > would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
> > >
> > > The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
> > > was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
> > > http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
> > >
> > > It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
> > > purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be
> better
> > > hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended
> up?
> > >
> > > If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
> > > hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
>
> Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too.
> If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting
> their right to have a project?
>
> ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been
> constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we
> acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one
> language but suggest this is not important for another.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
> When you read the phrasing about languages, you will find that an ISO-639
> code is a requirement. This does however not imply at all that it guarantees
> the creation of a project. With the ISO-639-6 it is likely that there will
> be a code for the American orthography (among others) for the English
> language. This will not imply at all that it will be ok to split the English
> language Wikipedia.

I was merely suggesting that if we take ISO-639 to be our basis as to
what is a language and what is not a language, Klingon passes the
mark. Your American English example isn't quite the same since
American English still has an expression in Wikimedia project. At the
moment, the Klingon language has no representation on any Wikimedia
project (effectively).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Brion Vibber-3]

Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
> What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
> Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
> You might want to lock all invented languages then.

Of the above, Esperanto has the best claim since it's actually used "in
the wild", with real speakers, including native speakers, and has over a
century of literature, music, novels, magazines, letters, plays, and
films to draw from as a corpus.

As for the others, long-established policy has generally been to allow
(especially older) languages originally created as general-purpose
auxiliary languages, while disallowing those constructed languages
created primarily for use in fictional works or hobby purposes.

Klingon is a part of a fictional universe; compare it to Tolkein's
Sindarin and Quenya (although it is a bit more developed), not to Esperanto.

The Klingon Wikipedia was closed on that basis after quite a bit of
debate, a decision finally being made by Jimmy's fiat; had we been aware
there was a stub Klingon Wiktionary it would have been closed at the
same time, but it escaped notice. (Toki pona was also closed some time
ago amid debate on where in the auxlang-conlang continuum it lies,
despite my support for it. Klingon is not alone.)

Now personally, I would be happy to let the language committee or
whoever's supposed to be deciding these things these days make a final
decision. I'd also be happy to pull the block during such an 'appeal'.

For now, I'm just applying the existing policy to something which got
forgotten.

-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Brion Vibber-3]

You know what? Hell with it, what do I care.

I'm removing the lock.

-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Dominic-21]

Brion Vibber wrote:

> You know what? Hell with it, what do I care.
>
> I'm removing the lock.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>  

Aside from the sensationalist fallacious logic that getting rid of
Klingon Wiktionary means we will get rid of every other constructed
language, even ones with native speakers and literature, has anyone
offered any reason to keep it?

We're still talking about the fictional language of a race of
intelligent crustaceans in the 24th century as portrayed in a popular TV
show, right? I think it should be the responsibility of that project's
editors (if there are any), now that the Wikipedia is shut down, to now
take it through the normal procedure for opening new Wiktionaries, as
this one never did.

Dominic

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:

> Aside from the sensationalist fallacious logic that getting rid of
> Klingon Wiktionary means we will get rid of every other constructed
> language, even ones with native speakers and literature, has anyone
> offered any reason to keep it?
>
> We're still talking about the fictional language of a race of
> intelligent crustaceans in the 24th century as portrayed in a popular TV
> show, right? I think it should be the responsibility of that project's
> editors (if there are any), now that the Wikipedia is shut down, to now
> take it through the normal procedure for opening new Wiktionaries, as
> this one never did.

For the sake of full disclosure: I have never watched an episode of
Star Trek on TV or any of the films. I have no interest in the
fictional world.

I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
Organisation

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Dominic-21]

Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
> Organisation
>
>  

There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
dictionary.

Dominic

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Oldak Quill wrote:
> For the sake of full disclosure: I have never watched an episode of
> Star Trek on TV or any of the films. I have no interest in the
> fictional world.
>
> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
> Organisation

And I think this shows what is wrong with the ISO.



--Jimbo


_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
> >
> > I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
> > concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
> > of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
> > recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
> > Organisation
> >
> >
>
> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
> not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
> constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
> gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
> of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
> to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
> the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
> cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
> in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
> discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
> dictionary.

Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're
written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in
Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage
of words.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Dominic-21]

Oldak Quill wrote:

> On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
>  
>> Oldak Quill wrote:
>>    
>>> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
>>> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
>>> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
>>> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
>> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
>> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
>> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
>> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
>> not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
>> constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
>> gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
>> of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
>> to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
>> the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
>> cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
>> in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
>> discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
>> dictionary.
>>    
>
> Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're
> written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in
> Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage
> of words.
>
>  

Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that
it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to
normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
dictionary that, because it was established as a dictionary written
using words that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary
standards, does not maintain the same standards as a dictionary? Neither
of them is acceptable.

Dominic


_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>
> >>> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
> >>> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
> >>> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
> >>> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
> >>> Organisation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
> >> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
> >> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
> >> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
> >> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
> >> not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
> >> constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
> >> gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
> >> of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
> >> to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
> >> the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
> >> cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
> >> in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
> >> discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
> >> dictionary.
> >>
> >
> > Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're
> > written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in
> > Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage
> > of words.
> >
> >
> Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that
> it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to
> normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a

A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in
language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that
language, in relatively few words.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Dominic-21]

Oldak Quill wrote:

> On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
>  
>> Oldak Quill wrote:
>>    
>>> On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
>>>>> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
>>>>> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
>>>>> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
>>>>> Organisation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
>>>> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
>>>> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
>>>> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
>>>> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
>>>> not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
>>>> constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
>>>> gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
>>>> of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
>>>> to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
>>>> the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
>>>> cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
>>>> in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
>>>> discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
>>>> dictionary.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're
>>> written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in
>>> Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage
>>> of words.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that
>> it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to
>> normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
>>    
>
> A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in
> language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that
> language, in relatively few words.
>
>  

That's not how Wiktionary works. The English Wiktionary, for example,
defines non-English words *in English*. A Klingon dictionary would be
expected to define words in Klingon. So I repeat, your choices are
either to have a dictionary define words using words it does not define
(Klingon words) or to define words (Klingon words) that cannot be
attested according to normal dictionary standards. Either choice damages
the integrity of the dictionary.

Dominic

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Oldak Quill]

On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
> >>>>> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
> >>>>> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
> >>>>> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
> >>>>> Organisation
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
> >>>> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
> >>>> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
> >>>> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
> >>>> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently. It's
> >>>> not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other
> >>>> constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have
> >>>> gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place
> >>>> of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop
> >>>> to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use
> >>>> the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a
> >>>> cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't
> >>>> in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or
> >>>> discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general
> >>>> dictionary.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're
> >>> written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in
> >>> Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage
> >>> of words.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that
> >> it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to
> >> normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
> >>
> >
> > A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in
> > language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that
> > language, in relatively few words.
> >
> >
> That's not how Wiktionary works. The English Wiktionary, for example,
> defines non-English words *in English*. A Klingon dictionary would be
> expected to define words in Klingon. So I repeat, your choices are
> either to have a dictionary define words using words it does not define
> (Klingon words) or to define words (Klingon words) that cannot be
> attested according to normal dictionary standards. Either choice damages
> the integrity of the dictionary.

Sorry, I don't think I was at all clear. Of course, a Klingon
dictionary would be expected to define words in Klingon. I was just
making the point it could define non-Klingon words in Klingon.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Jim Breen]

Frankly I don't see what is wrong with having a Klingon dictionary.
If Wikipedia can have an entry like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breen
why get picky about yet-another artificial language.

Jim
--
Jim Breen
Honorary Senior Research Fellow
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Dominic-21]

Jim Breen wrote:
> Frankly I don't see what is wrong with having a Klingon dictionary.
> If Wikipedia can have an entry like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breen
> why get picky about yet-another artificial language.
>
> Jim
>  

Sorry, what was the reason that Klingon is a useful language to build a
dictionary in? What does the English Wikipedia article on "Breen" have
to do with anything? That a single encyclopedia article on an unrelated
project is about a fictional species in Star Trek means we should *write
a dictionary* in a fictional language of Star Trek? I fail to see the
connection.

Dominic

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

[Muke Tever]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
>> I, for one, object to the closure of projects based on elitist
>> concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
>> of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
>> recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
>> Organisation
>
> There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations. As they
> say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
> provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
> documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
> modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently.

tlh is also in ISO 639-2 as well, whose scope is more limited, codes being
added to it "when it becomes apparent that a significant body of literature
in a particular language exists."

The full criteria are here:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/criteria2.html
(in brief, "that there is a significant body of literature in the language
or describing the language".)

> So I repeat, your choices are either to have a dictionary define wordsusing words it does not define (Klingon words) or to define words (Klingonwords) that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards.

First off, what kind of attestation are you seeking here?  There are published
reference books on the language and several translations into Klingon have been made:
Gilgamesh and a couple of Shakespeare plays are in print; online of course there's
more, such as extensive selections from the Bible (linguist Nick Nicholas has
the full text of the book of Mark on his website, among other things)...  This is
as much as if not more than many minority natural languages have.

I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns as to the origin of the language".
If Klingon (or any other language) is to be rejected it should be on at least
moderately objective criteria, which would pertain to the language's present,
not its origin--the bar can be higher for a constructed language, but it should
at least be presented an opportunity to rise above its birth.

It seems [from what I can tell now] that the Klingon Wikipedia was closed down not
because of any demerit in the language itself, but chiefly because it was not being
used (having 60 articles at time of closing).  tlh.wiktionary, it seems, has at
least two currently-active users (its admins) and 2,311 content pages.

        *Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l