Template talk:gkm
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
As above, although I don't feel as strongly about this as about Template:frc. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't Byzantine Greek different enough from Classical Greek to consider it a separate language? —CodeCat 03:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but here at Wiktionary we lump it in with Ancient Greek for practical reasons: no one with the expertise, time, and motivation to figure out the boundaries, set up the framework and template infrastructure, and create/convert the entries. Most of the editors working on Greek have background/interest in Classical and/or Biblical Greek or in Modern Greek- but not in Byzantine/Medieval Greek. The resources available are also much scarcer. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that really makes such a difference, though. Whether we consider it part of Ancient Greek, or as its own language, Byzantine Greek is still being neglected. Splitting it would just make that neglect more visible, which could have positive effects as well. As for boundaries, Wikipedia says it begins at 600, when Greek replaced Latin as the sole administrative language in the empire; and ends at 1453, with the Ottoman conquest. I'd say that's a fairly good definition. Of course we have to deal with the reality that the Greeks still spelled according to the classical norms at that time, but that isn't a problem nor is it a good motivation, because the polytonic spelling wasn't abandoned until the 20th century (it would be absurd to consider Greek from 1900 "ancient"!). —CodeCat 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but here at Wiktionary we lump it in with Ancient Greek for practical reasons: no one with the expertise, time, and motivation to figure out the boundaries, set up the framework and template infrastructure, and create/convert the entries. Most of the editors working on Greek have background/interest in Classical and/or Biblical Greek or in Modern Greek- but not in Byzantine/Medieval Greek. The resources available are also much scarcer. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Move to etyl:. We also need to delete the cat and recat Category:Terms derived from Byzantine Greek. Ancient Greek entries already cover Byzantine Greek pronunciations and I believe some vocabulary as well. Splitting it off would result in much more pointless duplication if anyone would even get around to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to treating Byzantine Greek as a separate language — nor do I object to our current arrangement, if our Greek editors are content with it. I made this RFM only because I knew it was current practice not to separate Byzantine Greek. Count me as withdrawing my support for the move and abstaining (but because some people have expressed support for the move, I'm not going to ‘withdraw’ the RFM in the sense of striking it and taking it off the page; I think that would be...undemocratic). - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
{{look}}
- Luacization means that this is now a request to move gkm from Module:languages' subpages to the subpages of the etym-only language module, but the basic request (to reflect the fact that gkm is currently an etym-only language) stands. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not moved; WT:LANGTREAT was updated at some point and now says "gkm" is treated as an independent language. - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)