Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Bungo

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Bungo 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:

The language subcommittee's policy does not allow Wikipedias in ancient languages (i.e. those with no native speakers, classified as "historical" by ISO 639-3). However, we encourage the creation of Wikisources in ancient languages, or incorporation of texts from that language into an existing Wikisource. Please add any Bungo materials to the Japanese Wikisource.Shanel 07:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
English: Bungo (文語), literally the written language, is a literary form of Japanese. The language is based on the spoken Japanese in the 8-11th century but exhibits some later influences, most notably the huge influx of Chinese vocabulary. Bungo, as its name suggests, continued to be the standard for writing until the early 20th century, and as such went under thousand years of sophistication. After the official documents adopted the spoken style in the late 1940s, the language nearly disappeared from daily life and now survives only in the realms of rituals and poetry.
日本語: 文語は少し古い日本語の書き言葉です。基になったのは平安時代の話し言葉ですが、その後も漢語の流入をはじめさまざまな変化がありました。文語という名の示すように、20世紀の初めまで千年の洗練を経ながら日本の書き言葉の地位を保っていました。1940年代後半に公式の文書が口語に切り替わってからは日々の生活から姿を消し、今では詩歌などに残るのみになりました。

--楓山 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • English:

    As the proposer, I argue that the five requisites stated on the Language proposal policy are met:

    1. The proposal is to open a new language edition of an existing Wikimedia project that does not already exist.
      This is clearly satisfied.
    2. The language should have a valid ISO-639 or BCP 47 code. If there is no valid ISO-639 or RFC 4646 code, it should be a natural language or a well-established constructed language. The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language.
      The language does not have a ISO-639 code, but I suppose it is indisputable that Bungo is a well-established natural language; see the article en:Classical Japanese Language.
    3. The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language.

      Although Bungo was widely used until the 1940s, it is quite different from the modern spoken-style Japanese in both grammar and vocabulary. This is evidenced by the fact, among others, that some works in Bungo from the late 19th century are commercially published in "translation" to the spoken style for native speakers of Japanese.

      Our project is different also from the proposed Archaic Japanese Wikipedia. The proposers of that project consider it important that their project stick to simulating the purely Heian-era language, and say that the project for Bungo in our broader sense should be proposed separately from theirs; see the discussion on their proposal and on their test project. We both acknowledge each other's projects as having different goals.

      From a pragmatic perspective, our project is probably easier than theirs, given the fact that an encyclopedia needs to include modern concepts and complicated notions. Although our project does not aim to simulate any standardized style at a particular point in the history, we believe that, because of the practical nature of Bungo that has been used until as recently as the 1940s, the pursuit for a language suitable for an encyclopedia will automatically define the style specifically enough for the wikipedia standard (and that will be very close to the official or academic language at the end of the 19th century); see the proposed guideline for style in the test project.

    4. I am interested in Japanese language so I would try to improve existed articles and to create new ones. We must save unique language and with it - Japanese culture. If there is Classical Chinese wikipedia, then why does wikipedia in Bungo language couldn't be created?I'm here new, so please be tolerant and if this commnet should be written below, please move it to the appropriate place. Thank you.--Battousai 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    5. The proposal has a sufficient number of interested editors to form a viable community and audience.
    6. There is an active test project on the Incubator wiki.
      These are up to your contribution! Help by creating and editing articles on the test project.


    1. 既存のウィキメディア事業における新言語版の提案であること。
    2. 当該言語にISO-639符号が与えられているか、あるいは自然言語か広く使われる人工言語であること。新しい言語を作るのは趣旨に反します。すでに多くの文章が書かれた言語であることが必要です。
    3. 他言語版に包含されないような固有の言語であること。既存版の方言や単なる異表記は原則として不適格です。




    4. 十分な参加者が見込めること。
    5. 試験版に進展のあること。
    --楓山 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 加筆:楓山 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support 普通文のような文体なら、擬古文よりも語彙が現代語に近いので、参加する人も多く見込めると思う。また、普通文で書かれた辞書、一般書籍、法令などは多く残っており、まさに百科事典にふさわしい文体だということの証左であろう。反対する理由は何もない。大賛成である。-- 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [Translation by 楓山 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)] Since Bungo from the late Meiji period has a closer vocabulary to that of modern Japanese than does the pure Old Japanese, many people can participate. Besides, there are dictionaries, laws and many books that are written in Bungo, which evidence that the language is rich enough for an encyclopedia. There is no reason to oppose. I strongly support this project.[reply]
  2. Support Since Classical Chinese, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) Wikipedia are allowed to have their own wikipedias, then Wikipedia Bungo should also have the priviledge to exist. --Jose77 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [Translation by 楓山 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)] 漢文版や古英語版があるのだから、文語ウィキペディアもあってよい。[reply]
  3. Support 古文にも賛成しましたが、こちらの方が参加者が多くなると思います。ニーノシュクブークモールも並立しているのですから可能だと思います。--Law soma 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Es ist gut einer Project von Geschichte Klasse zu haben. Deutschlehrer 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against[edit]

  • none.

Other discussion[edit]

  • 楓山さんのいう文語とは具体的にどのようなものでしょうか。普通文のような物と考えてよろしいのでしょうか。-- 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • はい、このプロジェクトでは特に歴史上のある一点にこだわらず、現代の百科事典に適した文語を目指します。明治時代に提唱された「普通文」も近代的な社会での実用に堪える汎用の文体としてそれまでの文語を整理したものですから、それに近いものにはなると思います。詳しくは上記Arguments in favourの初めにある第3項目や、試験運用中のガイドラインをご覧ください。--楓山 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same as Old Japanese, which has the ISO 639-3 code ojp? Jon Harald Søby 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably -- I need to look into their definition closely. The English term "Old Japanese" has two meanings, narrow and broad. In the narrower sense it means 上古語, the language of the eighth century, which is not the language of our project (nor the Archaic Japanese Wikipedia, which simulates a style of 中古語, the language in the tenth and eleventh centuries). In the broad sense the word literally means the "old" form of Japanese, i.e. the whole 文語, the premodern literary language based on (but not restricted to) the spoken language of 8-11th century, which would then perfectly match the scope of our project. (To avoid confusion, 上古語 is sometimes also termed "Early Old Japanese.")

      I guess they mean the broader definition (because it would be unnatural that the only code given to historical Japanese should be for such a specific language as 上古語), but I need to look closer when I have time. And even if it turns out the case, we also need to think how AJW and we should deal with the code. I think they and we should both use this code then, because their project is also about a specific style of Old Japanese. But I am not sure if Wikipedia authorities forbid two different projects pointing to one language code (do they?), although I am pretty sure that the languages are actually apart enough to justify two Wikipedias. There seem to be some rules to make up a code of the form "ojp-something", but I am not familiar with such issues and need some time to figure out. Anyway, many thanks for the information I had missed. --楓山 06:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I tried to figure out, but I am still not sure; I feel that their description is not specific enough. I will tentatively use ojp but may still try to find a better solution. --楓山 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 通常の日本語版ウィキペディアで用いられている言語と当版で用いられている言語について、文字・表記法・文法・語彙に独立したウィキペディアを設けることの意義を認め得るほどの差異がない、単に修辞における趣味レベルの違いに過ぎないという見方も多分にあり得ると思うのですが、そのように問われた場合どう答えますか?-- 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • はい。ご指摘の点は、注意深く議論すべきことだと思います。文語版は、口語文しか知らない日本人でも理解できる部分があるという意味で、既にあるどの言語版よりも日本語口語版に近いことは確かだからです。
      もちろん、歴史的に不連続性があるだけでなく、今日実際に十分に隔たっていることも議論する必要がありますが、これは上記Arguments in favourの初めにある第3項目に書いたように文語の著作がしばしば日本人向けに口語訳される状況から判断してよいと考えます。--楓山 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

却下? / Rejection?[edit]

Talk:Language subcommittee#New projects in historical languageをみて、おやとおもい pathoschildさん、Shanelさんにお尋ねしたのですが、新規の歴史的言語(historical language)のプロジェクト申請については一律に却下するよう、方針を最近改めたそうです。Meta:Language proposal policyにはこうありました。

The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion.

Pathoschild さんの個人的な意見としては、Wikiaなどにコンテンツを移して継続すればこれまでの営為が無駄にならずにすむのではないかということでした。LangComの方針としては、しかし却下ということです。

残念なお知らせで申し訳ないです。Pathoschildさんによれば、現在新方針に基づく依頼の許可/却下の通知を進めているということですので、そう遠くない将来、LangComのメンバーから正式な通知があると思います。--Aphaia 02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]