Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Chinglish

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Chinglish Wikipedia[edit]

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Chinglish (en-zh [invented]), Singlish (en-sg [invented])
  • Editing community: Oscarcwk (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Chinglish and Singlish are the dialects of English, when Chinglish is spoken in Hong Kong and Mainland China and Singlish is spoken in Singapore. These two languages are formed due to the English colonization in Hong Kong and Singapore and the trading between Chinese and British started from middle 1800s. Oscarcwk 08:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Unnecessary and useless, IMHO. Arbeo 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that is non-sense dialects. --Taichi - (あ!) 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish; Support Singlish. Chinglish is what's known as a "nativised variety" of English. It cannot entirely be called a dialect, but at the same time it is not a creole because it was never a pidgin. I don't support it because the phenomena that are called "Chinglish" range from almost pure English with the occasional particle or cantonese word, to something that's more half-and-half. Singlish, on the other hand, is a fully-formed creole language, drawing words and grammatical structures from English, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Malay, Tamil, and more recently, Mandarin. There is no standard writing system, though; when most people write it, it usually looks somewhat similar to English (but a bit strange), but if you wrote it even slightly phonetically, and if you marked tones (which it does have, although they are only sometimes phonemic, English-origin words are pronounced in a very "singsong" way), it would really demonstrate accurately the uniqueness of Singlish. Singlish as a spoken language bares little resemblance to standard English, in fact English speakers often mistake it for Chinese. So to the opposers, I ask you: Want Wikipedia in Singlish, got? Why oredi dun got!? Can make or not ah??? CAN LAH! --Node ue 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. I am sure Malaysian also understand this dialect of English, even spoken and familiar in Indonesian too lah!. Siti Atiroh 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It remains unclair to me whether these variants are spoken as native languages by some people. And even when they are, they might be somewhat unstable (speakers in Hong Kong and Singapore are likely to adept "real" English sooner or later). For now, I am neutral. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 08:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singlish is definitely used as a native language by many Singaporeans, it is a creole, I don't know about Chinglish. As regards adapting "real english sooner or later", then why do we have an Haitian Creole WP or a Tok Pisin or Bislama WP? Aren't they likely to adapt "real" French or English soon?? We could even extend that to Spanish and Portuguese and Italian, aren't they likely to adopt "real" Latin soon? --Node ue 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish. I am a Chinese in Hong Kong and I speak English not Chinglish. I also don't think there is any "native" Chinglish speakers (in Hong Kong), just Cantonese speakers who are taught English in school. We speak English , write English and in fact "Chinglish" is considered to be wrong, both in schools and the society. --Lorenzarius 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish. Chinglish has not been standardised and nor will it be.GnuDoyng 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish and Support Singlish. As Node has explained, Chinglish is a nativized variety of English (a sort of unstable code switching) while Singlish is a stable creole language on its own right, spoken natively by many Singaporeans (many Singaporeans are in fact bilingual in standard English and Singlish). It is not always mutually intelligible with English. If creoles such as Tok Pisin and Haitian Creole can have Wikipedias I see no reason why Singlish can't. However, I suggest that instead of "Singlish", we have "Malaysian and Singaporean English", in order to avoid the informal term "Singlish" and also be more inclusive to Manglish speakers. -- Ran 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. There are already distinct Singlish/Manglish media content in the form of literature, TV-shows, movies, comics, etc, and they are popular in those societies. Wikipedia should include this language. --Vsion 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both - Chinglish per above; Singlish because there's no set way to write in Singlish, besides a little SMS language and lahs and lors here and there. It wouldn't work. NSLE (T+C) 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish, Support Singlish. I've never heard of Chinglish and is not very well known and English speakers in HK and CN speak English NOT Chinglish. As for Singlish, I seriously don't know what to write, but I will try. Singlish is commonly used in Singaporeans and Malaysians everyday lives. --[[:en:User:Terence Ong|Terence Ong]] 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish/Manglish, oppose Chinglish. The main thing I'm concerned about is unnecessary forking, but I think actually using Singlish/Manglish might make it more accessible to some audiences. Chinglish is too unstable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. Chinglish is lame, lah. Miborovsky 08:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Limited audience. Moreover, it would be more kind of a joke instead of a serious reference material, la. (klingon should be deleted too!!!) __earth 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earth, I think you're wrong on at least two points. Yes the audience is limited but that goes for so many other Wikipedias. It surely is a matter of great Anglo-Saxon arrogance to say "your language has too few speakers, we ignore it". Second, a comparision with Klingon is patent nonsense: we're not discussing Wikipedias in fictional n3rd languages, but ones in real languages, one of which is even spoken by real people. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe but the Singlish is more of a street slang than a proper language. Singlish is not a language but rather, a slang. We could call it creole but it doesn't change the fact that Singlish is simply English with some street words, adapted to local circumtances. It's like having street words such as "yo", "dog", "bling bling" and then we pretend that all those street words along with other typical English words make up a different kind of English. Let's call it hiphoplish for our sake. And then, somebody comes up to Wikipedia and say, let's have a Hiphoplish Wikipedia! And that's what is happening here. __earth 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Earth: The fact that Singlish is a basilect does not make it any less of a language. We are not "pretending" that these "street words" make up a "different kind of English", it is a fact that the street pronunciation, street syntax, street vocabulary and street grammar of Singlish do indeed make up a different kind of English. Intrinsically speaking Singlish is no less a language than any other; the fact that Singlish is a basilect has nothing to do with the intrinsic properties of Singlish. And as for Hiphoplish Wikipedia, I don't think it's impossible to have a Ebonics Wikipedia that puts the complex Aspects of Ebonics to good use. Don't diss the verb aspects and remote phase marker of Ebonics, yo. -- Ran 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. What for leh. Aurora 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposes to both requests. There is no Chinglish or Singlish literature, there aren't any encyclopedias or academic literature written in Chinglish or Singlish. In my opinion, even the speakers who speaks Chinglish or Singlish wouldn't want to write an academic corpus (encyclopedia) in Chinglish or Singlish. As far as I know, it is only used on online chats and forums. --Shibo77 09:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a lil' thought o' mine: Can you consider an idiom a fully-fledged language if it doesn't even have a real name?? These "funny" Bollywood/Brangelina type denominations really speak for themselves, I think... --ARBE0 12:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, their names don't really speak for themselves. I would suggest making constructive comments on the syntax, morphology, and phonology of Singaporean and Malaysian English rather than their informal names.
      I should also point out that Bollywood is one of the world's most prolific film hubs and an important part of the modern culture of India, so I don't really see where you are going with your analogy. -- Ran 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, waste of space. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish, Support Singlish. I wait for this liao. Wah lau! I like this lah!
  • Neutral Chinglish, Oppose Singlish. Clueless in written Singlish, apologies!
  • Support Singlish, Oppose Chinglish. nl:Gebruiker: Boudewijn Idema

22 July 2006 13:03 (UTC)

  • Oppose Chinglish and Oppose Singlish