« Return to Thread: Klingon Wiktionary closed
Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed
by Dominic-21
::
Rate this Message:
Muke Tever wrote:
> Yann Forget <yann@...> wrote:
>
>> Dmcdevit wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>>> Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional alien race on a
>>> popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
>>> from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
>>> present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
>>> nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
>>>
>> I agree with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it all.
>>
>
> It is not an argument, it is rhetoric. And very weak, at that. It can be used
> with equal force by the other side, e.g.
> >> Our language is considered linguistically unimportant, functionally
> >> nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the more imperative
> >> that we produce a dictionary in it.
>
> Prejudice like that against a natural language (which is very often expressed in
> the world) would, I hope, never stand here against the opening of a wiki. The only
> remaining part of the agreed-with argument is that it is a constructed language, and
> we have not been deleting wikis merely because they belong to constructed languages.
>
> *Muke!
>You are under the misimpression that I don't like Klingon *because* it
is a constructed language. Nowhere have I said that. I have given actual
reasons, including its lack of speakers, lack of literature, lack of
significance, lack of educational use. On the other hand, if your
argument *is* "Our language is considered linguistically unimportant,
functionally nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the
more imperative that we produce a dictionary in it" that's not a
problem. The problem would be using that argument to create an
admittedly "educationally useless" dictionary as a WMF project rather
than on an external site. Inclusion guidelines are not prejudice; if you
are against any vetting of supposed languages at all, I think you are
fighting a losing battle. Wiktionary is not for promotion of your pet
project, so this is beginning to sound rather like the sort of argument
I hear when I delete some kid's protologism on Wiktionary, of some high
school band on Wikipedia ("The world doesn't know about it/us yet;
that's why we need an article!"). In fact, it *is* important that our
work support educational purposes, and it's not unreasonable to demand that.
Dominic
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
> Yann Forget <yann@...> wrote:
>
>> Dmcdevit wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>>> Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional alien race on a
>>> popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
>>> from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
>>> present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
>>> nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
>>>
>> I agree with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it all.
>>
>
> It is not an argument, it is rhetoric. And very weak, at that. It can be used
> with equal force by the other side, e.g.
> >> Our language is considered linguistically unimportant, functionally
> >> nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the more imperative
> >> that we produce a dictionary in it.
>
> Prejudice like that against a natural language (which is very often expressed in
> the world) would, I hope, never stand here against the opening of a wiki. The only
> remaining part of the agreed-with argument is that it is a constructed language, and
> we have not been deleting wikis merely because they belong to constructed languages.
>
> *Muke!
>
is a constructed language. Nowhere have I said that. I have given actual
reasons, including its lack of speakers, lack of literature, lack of
significance, lack of educational use. On the other hand, if your
argument *is* "Our language is considered linguistically unimportant,
functionally nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the
more imperative that we produce a dictionary in it" that's not a
problem. The problem would be using that argument to create an
admittedly "educationally useless" dictionary as a WMF project rather
than on an external site. Inclusion guidelines are not prejudice; if you
are against any vetting of supposed languages at all, I think you are
fighting a losing battle. Wiktionary is not for promotion of your pet
project, so this is beginning to sound rather like the sort of argument
I hear when I delete some kid's protologism on Wiktionary, of some high
school band on Wikipedia ("The world doesn't know about it/us yet;
that's why we need an article!"). In fact, it *is* important that our
work support educational purposes, and it's not unreasonable to demand that.
Dominic
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
« Return to Thread: Klingon Wiktionary closed
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
