Requests for new languages/Wikipedia High Norwegian
High Norwegian Wikipedia[edit]
| submitted | verification | final decision |
 |
This proposal has been rejected. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page. The closing committee member provided the following comment: This languages fails the requirements for eligibility described by the language proposal policy, specifically the requirement for an ISO 639-1–3 code. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
| Proposal summary |
|---|
|
| Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly. |
The High Norwegian language is different from New Norwegian, so I think is it's a good idea at starting a High Norwegian Wikipedia. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.M.S. (talk)
Arguments in favour[edit]
- High Norwegian is still in use today, and it is a written language that can represent the features of modern Norwegian dialects better than Bokmål or Riksmål for instance.
- Ivar Aasen was an expert in his field of research and the final form of the writing norm he published was founded on a great deal of research (noone responsible for the later changes to Landsmål/Nynorsk comes close to collecting and analyzing the amount of data he did in the 1800s). Later changes to Landsmål/Nynorsk, particularly after 1938, have not all been beneficial for the language. Some of them have been outright harmful to it.
- Nynorsk today has been changed a lot from its original form. Many of these changes show a lack of insight in etymology and orthography. Having High Norwegian/Høgnorsk as a subvariety of Nynorsk makes as much sence as claiming that the original Coca Cola is a subvariety of Coca Cola Vanilla or Cherry.
- High Norwegian is suitable writing norm for Norwegian, being based on most of the Norwegian dialects (with exceptions of the dialects from the northernmost parts of Norway today, Finnmark and parts of northern Troms) and their development from Old Norwegian. One could say it is suitable for a democracy. (People who disagree often don't have sufficient knowledge of their own dialect and the dialects of other Norwegians. For instance, some people with a dialect similar to bokmål/riksmål claim they don't have a dialect (Not recognizing that any spoken language is a dialect of some overarching language. We live in a world where everyone lives in a dialect continuum, the line between one "language" and another is at times very hard to draw).
Arguments against[edit]
- Seems to have no valid ISO-code. A two-letter code can't possibly be an iSO 639-2 code. --OosWesThoesBes 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- As said above: No valid ISO code according to w:List of ISO 639-1 codes. The above link points to a non-existing Wikipedia article and w:Høgnorsk does not provide an ISO code, either.
- Additionally, the Nynorsk Wikipedia already accepts articles in Høgnorsk, see nn:Kategori:Høgnorske flokkar.
- After all, having three different Norwegian Wikipedias would almost certainly overstretch the resources of a relatively small linguistic community. --Johannes Rohr 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No ISO-code. (Anyone who wants to write Wikipedia articles in høgnorsk is welcome to do it in nn.wikipedia, and there is also a høgnorsk wiki at Målflekken, the wiki of Ivar Aasen-sambandet. For reference: Discussion on nn.wikipedia where some høgnorsk users say they think the høgnorsk section on nn.wikipedia is working ok (but has little activity), and a leader (nn:Brukar:Fatagnus) of the w:Ivar Aasen-sambandet says «Eit eige ålment netuppslagsverk (som Wikipedia) på høgnorsk sér eg som heilt urealistiskt.» : 'I see a separate online full encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) in Høgnorsk as completly unrealistic.') --Jorunn 13:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously this request was not made by an interested user but by a user who doesn't even speak the language. So it can be closed anyway. --Thogo (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)