Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification of language inclusion
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
languages that are not natural languages still excludes sign languages, I think. -- Prince Kassad 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh man, are you kidding me? DAVilla 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just want the text to be precise, so no ambiguity can exist. This is what plagues a lot of the passages in CFI, so it should be prevented if possible. -- Prince Kassad 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Although this is a policy vote, or maybe a meta-policy vote, there is no actual text to enter CFI. For the purpose of this vote, consider a natural language to be any language that arises naturally from the conversation between people. This would include most sign languages, no? DAVilla 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand that definition. Constructed languages include any language that was deliberately constructed, and includes many sign languages--and I'm not sure we want it any other way, given that sign languages can be constructed as easily as oral languages.--Prosfilaes 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, in that case consider that sign languages have already been approved, so are not in contention. I suppose the same could really have been said about natural languages too. On the other hand I'm about to scrap this entire vote as too abstract. The original version made more sense to me. DAVilla 05:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand that definition. Constructed languages include any language that was deliberately constructed, and includes many sign languages--and I'm not sure we want it any other way, given that sign languages can be constructed as easily as oral languages.--Prosfilaes 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Although this is a policy vote, or maybe a meta-policy vote, there is no actual text to enter CFI. For the purpose of this vote, consider a natural language to be any language that arises naturally from the conversation between people. This would include most sign languages, no? DAVilla 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just want the text to be precise, so no ambiguity can exist. This is what plagues a lot of the passages in CFI, so it should be prevented if possible. -- Prince Kassad 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can anyone give an example of a constructed sign language? As far as I can tell, the familiar ones all seem to be natural languages. —RuakhTALK 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking through Wikipedia, it seems that virtually none of the standard sign languages seem to be constructed. Gestuno is the classic example of a constructed sign language.--Prosfilaes 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- So to be clear, we're saying that Gestuno would need to have specific approval before terms in that sign language could be included, correct? DAVilla 08:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, same as Toki Pona.—msh210℠ (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- So to be clear, we're saying that Gestuno would need to have specific approval before terms in that sign language could be included, correct? DAVilla 08:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)