When new texts are written in an extinct language, it is highly academic if what is written is correct, useful and understandable. Often there are several ways of writing a language because languages evolve over time and the orthography change with it. It may even be that the script changed as well. Given that there are no living people who use the language for their daily communications, there is no final word on what is right or wrong.
There are several Wikipedias in truly extinct languages and I am not impressed with what I have seen so far. I recently learned about a dispute in the "Anglo Saxon" Wikipedia where people are fighting about the use of specific characters. When you read about this, you learn that the language used a different script anyway. it is also about the validity of a book on the subject from the 1970's.
With a transliteration to another script, with the use of extended Latin script, I wonder if people who read the texts of the Anglo Saxon Wikipedia actually learn something that helps them understand old original texts.
Thanks,
GerardM
Showing posts with label ancient language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ancient language. Show all posts
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
When a language is no longer that language
Gothic is a truly ancient language. It is dead, it has not been used in earnest anymore for a long time. The Wikipedia article is quite clear about this; "There are only a few surviving documents in Gothic, not enough to completely reconstruct the language".
There is a Gothic Wikipedia. I cannot read it, I do not have the necessary fonts and that is not a problem. What I do find problematic is what I learned about the localisation effort on Betawiki. Siebrand asked about the change in the font used because prior to the new work, the localisation was in Gothic. The answer is that the messages are now transliterated into the Latin script. One of the arguments used is that "the original fonts are more difficult".
I have a problem with reconstructed languages. They are no longer the language itself and they should not be tagged as such. By moving to another script, this project has moved even further from what I think is acceptable. This move from the Gothic script to the Latin script is not acceptable to me. When the problem is with finding a proper font, this has to be tacked.
I do urge the people interested in the Gothic to be truthful to that language. This is in my opinion already quite impossible but as they stop being truthful to the language by ditching the script, I am of the opinion that they lost the license to call it a Gothic Wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
There is a Gothic Wikipedia. I cannot read it, I do not have the necessary fonts and that is not a problem. What I do find problematic is what I learned about the localisation effort on Betawiki. Siebrand asked about the change in the font used because prior to the new work, the localisation was in Gothic. The answer is that the messages are now transliterated into the Latin script. One of the arguments used is that "the original fonts are more difficult".
I have a problem with reconstructed languages. They are no longer the language itself and they should not be tagged as such. By moving to another script, this project has moved even further from what I think is acceptable. This move from the Gothic script to the Latin script is not acceptable to me. When the problem is with finding a proper font, this has to be tacked.
I do urge the people interested in the Gothic to be truthful to that language. This is in my opinion already quite impossible but as they stop being truthful to the language by ditching the script, I am of the opinion that they lost the license to call it a Gothic Wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)