Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix I: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision
This page does not form part of the proposal, but details particular issues
Feature | ConLangs | Qualifying Ancient Languages | Indicates relevance (best) for |
---|---|---|---|
Large corpus of works | No; but a corpus must exist.[1][2] | Yes[3] | Ancient languages |
Native speakers | No, but a 'second generation' must exist[4] | No; but there must be language transmission and high levels of competence.[3] | Neither |
Current cultural production | Yes[5] | Yes[3] | Both |
Large body of competent authors | No[6] | Yes[3] | Ancient Languages |
Designed to be easy to learn | Yes typically[7] | No | ConLangs |
Users who potentially do not share another common language | Yes | Yes | Both |
Users who are more competent than in English | Yes | Yes | Both |
Large potential current audience | No[8] | Yes[3] | Ancient Languages[9] |
Current terminology | Yes | Yes[3] | Both |
Significant academic interest | No | Yes | Ancient Languages[10] |
Wide cultural relevance | No[11] | Yes[12] | Ancient Languages |
Summary | Low bar to entry | High bar to entry | Only highly relevant Ancient Languages qualify under the proposed policy |
Notes
edit- ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a large body of works
- ↑ ISO 639-3 requires that the language "have a literature"
- ↑ a b c d e f This is a requirement of the proposed policy
- ↑ ISO 639-3 requires that the language be old enough to have been 'passed on', but this does not seem to be a requirement for 'native' ability (needs clarification).
- ↑ This is required for ConLangs by current policy
- ↑ This is not required for ConLangs under current policy
- ↑ Language design will typically favour and disfavour certain language groups. Not all ConLangs are necessarily designed to be easy, particularly fictional languages, but fictional languages are discounted by WM policy
- ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a large potential audience
- ↑ A large trained potential audience is required by the proposed AL policy, but is not required for ConLags, as they are more easily learnt.
- ↑ Qualifying Ancient languages are likely to be understood and generate attention from very many academics globally, in varying ways that can benefit a Wiki project
- ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a wide cultural relevance, but only relevance for their users
- ↑ As the proposed policy requires a large body of works, a large number of people with knowledge of and competence in the language, an ancient language could only qualify in practice if it holds wide cultural significance
Comments to the Appendix
editI would rather doubt if "Easy to learn" is correctly explained here or not, since there are still hard-to-learn conlangs and easy-to-learn ancient languages, also this seems only accounted the ancient languages, how about extinct and historical languages? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JimKillock: If you don't oppose, then I'd love to remove the "Easy to learn" line, because this could really, really and really be affected by too many different circumstances, entirely unable to count. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Thanks for the feedback, can we amend it to something that makes more sense? It is generally a design purpose. I will have a go now, and you can see what you think. --JimKillock (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)