2011/7/14 Milos Rancic
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:56, M. Williamson wrote:
> > Present research actually indicates the decline of linguistic diversity
> has
> > accelerated in the last 10-15 years, possibly due to the exact factor you
>
> May you point to some statistics or relevant researches
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:56, M. Williamson wrote:
> Present research actually indicates the decline of linguistic diversity has
> accelerated in the last 10-15 years, possibly due to the exact factor you
May you point to some statistics or relevant researches for the period
2000-2010?
> Now wh
2011/7/12 Milos Rancic
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:47, M. Williamson wrote:
> > Milos, it is a fantasy of many that is not supported by research, that
> just
> > because people are rich or have technology, their language will magically
> > not die.
>
> I wouldn't say that it is a fantasy, but b
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:34, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Milos Rancic
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:16, Gerard Meijssen
>> wrote:
>> > So you understand what a macro language is. Why the kicking then ?
>>
>> Because the category is comparable with the categorization of animals
>> in
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:47, M. Williamson wrote:
> Milos, it is a fantasy of many that is not supported by research, that just
> because people are rich or have technology, their language will magically
> not die.
I wouldn't say that it is a fantasy, but bold speculation :D
I am not saying th
Also, I should note that your story about Romani seems to prove the exact
opposite of what your point seemed to be:
"I know a number or the third generation of integrated Roma who don't know a
word of any Roma language."
Yes, this is an interesting statement. Do you know any ethnic Serbians
livin
Milos, it is a fantasy of many that is not supported by research, that just
because people are rich or have technology, their language will magically
not die. I have never been to New York or London and am not talking about
such cities; I am talking about medium-sized cities around the world
(altho
2011/7/12 Milos Rancic
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:16, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
> > So you understand what a macro language is. Why the kicking then ?
>
> Because the category is comparable with the categorization of animals
> in encyclopedia Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge [1].
It
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:16, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> So you understand what a macro language is. Why the kicking then ?
Because the category is comparable with the categorization of animals
in encyclopedia Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge [1].
[1] http://www.multicians.org/thvv/borg
Hoi,
So you understand what a macro language is. Why the kicking then ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 12 July 2011 10:59, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:03, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
> > Macro languages are nicely defined. They are languages that used to be
> > recognised at one tim
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:03, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Macro languages are nicely defined. They are languages that used to be
> recognised at one time as a single language but are found to be a
> combination of multiple languages. Kicking the idea of macro-languages is
> daft; it is not only a re
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:04 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 13:57, emijrp wrote:
>
>> If Wikimedia projects and WMF leave to die 90% (or 80%, or 70%, or 60%) of
>> current languages in the next 40 years (we will be alive to see it,
>> probably), then both are failures.
>
>
> First thin
Hoi,
Macro languages are nicely defined. They are languages that used to be
recognised at one time as a single language but are found to be a
combination of multiple languages. Kicking the idea of macro-languages is
daft; it is not only a result of the work of SIL it is more the consequence
of the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Thomas Goldammer wrote:
> It won't be possible to save languages going extinct. Even if two or
> three people start writing a Wikipedia in such a language, it will die
> out as a spoken language, eventually, not later than it would without
> a Wikipedia. I think it
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:27, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer
>> > How many people don't
>> > understand any Wikipedia today?
>>
>> Of those who can read at all, probably much less than 1%. The problem
>> are those people who can't read.
>
> For persons who can't read it's fa
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:34, M. Williamson wrote:
> No, Milos, my "reasoning" is not "of the industrial age". It is backed up by
> first-hand experience and by research. People who live in cities are by
> nature a part of a larger urban community, with few exceptions (if there is
> some kind of
No, Milos, my "reasoning" is not "of the industrial age". It is backed up by
first-hand experience and by research. People who live in cities are by
nature a part of a larger urban community, with few exceptions (if there is
some kind of enforced segregation, like ghettoization of Jews which often
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 22:42, M. Williamson wrote:
> To be honest, I don't think 10k is a fair threshold. Many languages with
> hundreds of thousands of speakers will likely go extinct by 2050, due to
> high levels of bilingualism and low levels of children learning the
> language. This language
To be honest, I don't think 10k is a fair threshold. Many languages with
hundreds of thousands of speakers will likely go extinct by 2050, due to
high levels of bilingualism and low levels of children learning the
language. This language shift is particularly acute on the American
continent, where
By hopefully having a Wikipedia in all 700 languages that will be around
then.
Language death makes me really sad, and there are lots of things that are
being done about it, and more should be done, but I'm not sure it's the
Foundation's job, just like it's not our job to save endangered species
(
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 19:54, Thomas Goldammer wrote:
> efforts are made, we could get those into Wikipedia business. But, we
> would need a boatload of money (yes, why not taking it from the
> military budgets - but who should hand it over to us ;) ) to go around
The most important serious work
On 11 July 2011 13:57, emijrp wrote:
> If Wikimedia projects and WMF leave to die 90% (or 80%, or 70%, or 60%) of
> current languages in the next 40 years (we will be alive to see it,
> probably), then both are failures.
First thing would be a Wikisource or similar then. Just gather up as
much
>
> To make those languages viable enough to survive -- much more work
> than just our is needed. I am sure that 10% of military budgets of the
> world countries for one year would preserve all languages, but that's
> the other issue. Basically, that's not our failure as Wikimedians, but
> failure
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 14:57, emijrp wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Milos Rancic
>> Note that estimates from the past (and likely from the present) count
>> that no language with less than 1M of speakers would survive 2050.
>
> If Wikimedia projects and WMF leave to die 90% (or 80%, or 70%, or 60%) of
> cur
2011/7/11 Milos Rancic
>
> Note that estimates from the past (and likely from the present) count
> that no language with less than 1M of speakers would survive 2050.
>
>
If Wikimedia projects and WMF leave to die 90% (or 80%, or 70%, or 60%) of
current languages in the next 40 years (we will be a
>>
> Yep. Wikipedia community have to start to rescue that knowledge in danger.
> Knowledge is being destroyed everywhere: digital (dead links) and analogical
> (dying languages/cultures, places [without pics], etc).
> ___
Right! Digitalizing text corpo
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:32, emijrp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language
>
> "It is believed that 90% of the circa 7,000 languages currently spoken in
> the world will have become extinct by 2050, as the world's language system
> has reached a crisis and is dramatically restruc
2011/7/11 Amir E. Aharoni :
> 2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer
>> > How many people don't
>> > understand any Wikipedia today?
>>
>> Of those who can read at all, probably much less than 1%. The problem
>> are those people who can't read.
>
> For persons who can't read it's far better to learn reading f
>
> Why not? Why do people need to learn English to read a complete
> encyclopedia? Biased thinking.
>
They don't need to learn these "big" languages, they already speak
them. The people learn other languages not because they want access to
Wikipedia, but because they want to communicate to more o
2011/7/11 Amir E. Aharoni
> I'll never lose hope that we'll have a full-blown encyclopedia in each
> of the 7,000 languages, but even if we won't, it's still very much in
> the scope of Wikimedia's mission to have full collections of free
> texts in all of them - folk tales, religious texts, any
2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer
> > How many people don't
> > understand any Wikipedia today?
>
> Of those who can read at all, probably much less than 1%. The problem
> are those people who can't read.
For persons who can't read it's far better to learn reading first in
their own language.
--
Amir E
2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer
> 2011/7/11 emijrp :
> > @Thomas and @Andre: I know that it is very hard to mantain a Wikipedia in
> > 'remote' or 'almost extinct' languages, but, if we don't save as much as
> we
> > can of them (including words, grammar, culture, social values), how are
> we
> > goin
2011/7/11 emijrp :
> @Thomas and @Andre: I know that it is very hard to mantain a Wikipedia in
> 'remote' or 'almost extinct' languages, but, if we don't save as much as we
> can of them (including words, grammar, culture, social values), how are we
> going to offer 'all human knowledge' ?
We offe
2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer
>
> It won't be possible to save languages going extinct. Even if two or
> three people start writing a Wikipedia in such a language, it will die
> out as a spoken language, eventually, not later than it would without
> a Wikipedia. I think it's nice to have a corpus of
@Thomas and @Andre: I know that it is very hard to mantain a Wikipedia in
'remote' or 'almost extinct' languages, but, if we don't save as much as we
can of them (including words, grammar, culture, social values), how are we
going to offer 'all human knowledge' ?
How are we going to offer knowledg
It won't be possible to save languages going extinct. Even if two or
three people start writing a Wikipedia in such a language, it will die
out as a spoken language, eventually, not later than it would without
a Wikipedia. I think it's nice to have a corpus of encyclopedic
articles in such language
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM, emijrp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language
>
> "It is believed that 90% of the circa 7,000 languages currently spoken in
> the world will have become extinct by 2050, as the world's language system
> has reached a crisis and is dramatically res
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language
"It is believed that 90% of the circa 7,000 languages currently spoken in
the world will have become extinct by 2050, as the world's language system
has reached a crisis and is dramatically restructuring."
How is Wikipedia going to affect this languag
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 21:28, Milos Rancic wrote:
> * 270 Wikimedia languages (however, you would see below that the term
> "language" is not quite precise)
One note: there are 270 languages counting Simple English as a
constructed/controlled language. If it isn't counted, there are 269
language
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 21:40, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> 2011/7/10 Milos Rancic :
>> and one in revived language (Manx).
>
> Ahem.
>
> The definition of a "revived language" is very controversial, but if
> you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles) and Cornish
> (2,000+ articles).
Bet
2011/7/10 Milos Rancic :
> and one in revived language (Manx).
Ahem.
The definition of a "revived language" is very controversial, but if
you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles) and Cornish
(2,000+ articles).
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wor
41 matches
Mail list logo
