Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix I: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This page does not form part of the proposal, but details particular issues

Comparision of ConLangs policy vs Ancient Languages policy proposal
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]

  1. ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a large body of works
  2. ↑ ISO 639-3 requires that the language "have a literature"
  3. ↑ a b c d e f This is a requirement of the proposed policy
  4. ↑ 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).
  5. ↑ This is required for ConLangs by current policy
  6. ↑ This is not required for ConLangs under current policy
  7. ↑ 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
  8. ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a large potential audience
  9. ↑ A large trained potential audience is required by the proposed AL policy, but is not required for ConLags, as they are more easily learnt.
  10. ↑ 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
  11. ↑ The current policy does not require ConLangs to have a wide cultural relevance, but only relevance for their users
  12. ↑ 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[edit]

I 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_I:_ConLangs_vs_Ancient_Languages_comparision&oldid=22023198"