Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Proto-Indo-European 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proto-Indo-European Wikipedia[edit]

See the third request (rejected).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Proto-Indo-European 2)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg 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 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Proto-Indo-European (— ISO—)
  • Editing community: Sajasaze
    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: Previous request
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Uses traditional Latin alphabet (possible some diacritics for long vowels)
  • Dictionary from reconstructed roots (there is a database in the Net [1]), if impossoble - from Latin with reversed regular transformations.

Notes/Comments/Questions[edit]

  • There is a grammar in the Net, though, in Russian.--Nxx 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Impossible. In fact, reconstructed PIE is just a constructed language, and certainly not a classical language. There's no native speaker base, no community, no literary tradition, no revival movement, no nothing but a sea of uncertainty. Caesarion 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: By all means reserve the namespace 'pie', pending further development. However, I'm sceptical until someone can translate this sentence. --Nema Fakei 01:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Which would be virtually impossible as it is higly unlikely that the concepts represented by "pending", "skeptical", "translate" and "sentence" and possibly "development" existed 8- to 10,000 years ago. I suppose one could jump through hoops (and/or jump to contusions) to force words to match the concepts, but I too am skeptical, hence my proviso. Jim62sch 09:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  • Support--Nxx 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema, 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There have been some texts in PIE done, so it's possible. -- Sajasaze 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- but only with the proviso that it be an attempt to construct PIE. We cannot write anything in PIE (hence the asterisk before every proposed PIE word and the abundance of parenthetical letters to explain cetain phoneme shifts). The Tower of Babel? I hope that was a joke. Jim62sch 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I know I came late, please read the third request! --Guillermo2149 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose. There are no written records of PIE; everything is speculation. You might as well propose a PIE-like conlang. —Psychonaut 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who knows for sure if Proto Indo European even existed as a language? There are no records of such a language except contrived 20th and 21st century ones. While a vast family of languages are connected together in an Indo-European group, IMO a number of Indo European languages started off at the Tower of Babel but not as one single Indo European language. Keeno 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wiki's in extinct languages born dead -- Raghav 14:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but reconstructed PIE is entirely non-standardized. While it is true that there are people who could speculate as to how things would work, I could see edit wars over simple things such as "ADJECTIVES GO AFTER NOUNS!" or something like that. I would reconsider my decision to oppose this if we find actual attested PIE, which is nigh impossible barring getting a time machine and listening to the native speakers. --02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (Needs to log in to vote.--Californiacondor 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Oppose. As great as it sounds to a linguist, the idea is wrong from the start, its all speculation, we shouldn't make a page for a language we know next to nothing about.Mecca Cola 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--Mustafa Akalp 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  • Neutral. Have you ever read the three versions of the one and the same short text that (to my knowledge) were produced in order to demonstrate that it is possible to write in PIE? They differ strongly from each other, each of them, of course, being dependent of specific theoretical presuppositions. The proposal sounds dilettantic and I like it for that, but it is a nearly impossible task to do. --89.50.205.218 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would support if this will be in conlang section, because this is conlang --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)