A proud moment

At the Wikimedia Foundation I have been banging the drum for the use of standards. I made some friends and enemies in that way, but the overall effect has been good. Some fights are no longer fought because the result is clear from the start.

At Betawiki, we are developing an extension for MediaWiki called Babel. The tool is to be used on the user pages indicating the self assessed skills in the languages a person knows. The texts are shown in the language itself.

When we do not have a translated text yet, we are still able to use the native name of that language courtesy of the data available in the CLDR. The standard is not complete, and I asked if it was possible to change the data in our database. I was told no. "The data belongs to a standard and, the data should be improved at source".

I do agree with this sentiment. I have written to someone active in the CLDR if there is an interest in collaboration. I am happy and proud of this turn of events. I hope that we are welcome :)
Thanks,
GerardM

The practical application of types of languages

The types of individual languages as posted on the SIL website names five types of languages. In my opinion there are only two of these types that allow for new terminology and still be the same language, they are the living and the constructed languages. In the definition of constructed languages reconstructed languages are specifically excluded.

The problem is, what do you do with reconstructed languages. How do you qualify a project from both a linguistic and from a language standards point of view that aims to write an encyclopaedia in Ancient Greek or one in Ottoman Turkish?

From my point of view, you reconstruct such a language when you want to discuss modern concepts. The concepts of existing words has to be morphed into something new in order for the words to fit. New words have to be borrowed from other languages or invented in order to express things like computer, satellite or television.

When you have people writing new texts in historic, extinct or ancient languages they should not qualify as being in this language. Then again, if you take Latin, a language qualified as ancient, you have a language that has been continuously used in the Roman Catholic church, a language that is the national language of the Vatican with a dictionary of modern words to help understand where classical knowledge does not suffice.

The question is how do you deal with modern texts in historic, extinct or ancient languages. How should they be tagged. It is clear that these modern variations are quite distinct from the original language. When you consider "Church Latin", according to Wikipedia it is the same language as the classical language. But given the continuous usage it should not be labeled as ancient.

In the Wikimedia Foundation the answer to these questions is what the decision to approve or deny a new language for most of the project types. The one exception is Wikisource, a library of source texts with translations and other supporting material.

In conclusion:

• Should Latin be marked as an ancient language
• How do you label efforts in reviving a language

Thanks,
Gerard