I tried to add the template to get the entry in the different languages (I'm going to create the Spanish one), but didn't seem to succeed
- I created the template needed, with Spanish added. Go ahead and create the translation. --Sannab 10:26, 15 August 2006 (CEST)
moved here from language Siebrand 11:45, 18 October 2006 (CEST)
How about: "OmegaWiki aims not to define what language is or which ones could qualify as a language, but rather OmegaWiki is interested in cataloguing all variations that stem around a defined meaning. If there is a phoneme related to a defined meaning with a sizeable community using that/those phoneme(s) to represent that defined meaning, then we want to catalogue it." A language in it's most basic form is a phoneme representing a defined meaning (excluding deaf/mute/blind and other alternative languages). However OmegaWiki deals with computers and therefore a grapheme to represent that phoneme/semantics combination is required as well as a computer input system to input that grapheme. Moreover, in order to justify cataloguing, the language needs a sizeable community with some knowledge of that language, meaning a person cannot simply invent a new conlang and catalogue it onto OmegaWiki. --Shibo77diskuto 09:19, 28 March 2006 (CEST)
- Conlangs are a different thing altogether.. When a language exists, has a certain reputation.. that is when it becomes relevant to OmegaWiki. Then again, conlangs will by default not be shown to people. GerardM 10:07, 28 March 2006 (CEST)
- Signed languages have or deveop picture series replacing traditional fonts.
- One can use speech synthesizers as output processors for expressions.
- We can store digitized audio along with expressions. -- Purodha Blissenbach 22:43, 16 July 2006 (CEST)
expressions not belonging to a specific language
In ISO 639-3, we have 3 language codes for non-languages:
see also the last paragraph on scopes.
zxx apply. Thus, we possibly should create Portal:und and/or Portal:zxx for numbers, symbols, formulae, internationally recognized abbreviations and acronyms, and the like. Nonwithstanding some of those may also exist within the domain of a language, e.g. 'Nato' certainly has an english spelt out meaning.
-- Purodha Blissenbach 22:34, 16 July 2006 (CEST)
moved here from language Siebrand 11:47, 18 October 2006 (CEST)
At some stage I said, "OmegaWiki is about defined meanings with strings attached". Some of the strings attached seem to be obvious; an Expression belongs to a Language. Then what do you do when no Language is defined? Some symbols are universally understood eg kg or $ or H2O so do you really want to create expressions in every language.. There are certainly strings attached to what we define.
A language has always practically been something defined in the ISO-639. There are three versions and, we are quite happy to accept the ISO-639-3 warts and all. However good ISO-639-3 is, it will not suffice; Griko a language spoken in the south of Italy is derived from Greek. It does not have its own code yet so we could call it el-ITA. However, there are two distinct variations of Griko; one is based on Old Greek and the other has more Byzantine influences.. How are we call this? We have among our users wants to create a dictionary for Reggio Emilia.. what code are we going to use for that ?
There are several people interested in Tokipona what do we do with this one? There used to be a wikipedia for it, it is now in wikicities I understand.. When you look at what OmegaWiki aims to do, we want them all. The thing we have to solve is how to indicate languages and how to deal with the "splitters and lumpers".
Above text by GerardM, March 2006.
OmegaWiki's notion of language
I did a fairly substantial rewrite of the article, and most of my additions are in the sections "OmegaWiki's notion of language", "Language, script, and orthography", and "Languages which are not written". I wrote these to answer my own questions in a way that will help other recent arrivals. I am not qualified to speak for OmegaWiki, so please correct what I said about OmegaWiki where I am incorrect. I'm more qualified to talk about language, script, and orthography, which have their meaning independent of OmegaWiki's intentions, but others can probably improve those descriptions too. JimDeLaHunt 18:38, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Ontology of "language" in discussing OmegaWiki
I propose to add something like the following to the article, but it's only a placeholder so far:
OmegaWiki is a collection of language constructs describing language constructs, and when we discuss OmegaWiki we use yet more language constructs. Not surprisingly, it's easy to end up using the single word "language" to refer to multiple different concepts, and it can get confusing. This is an attempt at an ontology for concepts about language in discussing OmegaWiki.
- TODO: Jim to finish up writing this ontology, but not not tonight. JimDeLaHunt 03:07, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Language names in various languages
There is a useful database for language names in various languages collected by the Unicode CLDR (Common Locale Data Repository) project, see: Locale Data Summary at CLDR. The CLDR database is used by most major software manufacturers in order to get the most authoritative localization data for their software products, including language names, names of countries, currencies time zones etc. (I have the impression that at least for Finnish, the OmegaWiki uses some less standard translations of languge names.) -- Koskenni