Additional version of Nynorsk (nn)?
Seeing that the language policy is liberal enough to include formal versions of languages (and even dead languages), I thought that I should ask this:
There exists another version of the Nynorsk written standard, namely Høgnorsk. This is at present an unofficial version of Norwegian, but nonetheless, I dare say that it is pretty well-defined. After all, to a large extent, it consists of what used to be the offical version of Nynorsk - before it was decided that Nynorsk should be merged with Bokmål (nb); a goal which has since been abandoned. However, the changes to make Nynorsk and Bokmål more similar have more or less not been undone; such that many important differences between Høgnorsk and Nynorsk remain:
- Høgnorsk has generally a more complex grammar, including additional classes of nouns, more irregular verbs and more object forms (a differentiation between dei ('they') and deim ('them') which is not present in Nynorsk, for example)
- a lot of different spelling, sometimes (often?) reflecting different pronounciation
a few more things: on the Nynorsk Wikipedia, articles written in Høgnorsk are allowed behind the "prefix" Hn/ and are found in their own category. These articles exist in parallell to the articles in official Nynorsk. Furthermore, some of the Wikimedia user interface has already been translated into Høgnorsk, as can be seen on this wiki which is written in Høgnorsk.
Is there a possibility that this version of the Norwegian language could have its own localisation with a fallback to Nynorsk? What say you?
If it does not have an ISO 639-3 code, it cannot be supported.
It could be used for instance at the Nynorsk Wikipedia (since we already for a long time have had articles written in Høgnorsk there, it would be a natural place to use it), but naturally also for any non-Wikimedia wiki that so wishes it; like the example I provided (I asked at the place if they could be interested in this).
I do not think that it has its own ISO 639-3 code (it does though seem to have been regisetered at IANA as nn-hognorsk, if that matters); however, the reason that I mentioned the formal versions of languages, is because I was thinking of Høgnorsk in the same manner: a subset of Nynorsk. What is the reasoning for allowing formal versions; and in which manner would this reasoning collide with the reasoning for allowing a more or less well-defined subset of an existing language?
Please repeat the request once it has an ISO 639 code. Thanks.
It has the ISO 369 code
nn-hognorsk since a year and a month as of the IANA language subtag registry which has these two entries:
%% Type: variant Subtag: hognorsk Description: Norwegian in Høgnorsk (High Norwegian) orthography Added: 2010-01-02 Prefix: nn Comments: Norwegian following Ivar Aasen's orthographical principles, including modern usage. %% Type: language Subtag: nn Description: Norwegian Nynorsk Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Latn Macrolanguage: no %%
Just looked it up. The code is structurally similar to e.g. be-tarask.
Greetings --Purodha Blissenbach 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hoi, NN-hognorsk is ´´not´´ an ISO-639 code. It follows the relevant RFC. Ask yourself, what was the reason why BE-tarask is used. Thanks,
Well, nn is the ISO 639 code, and the code nn-hognorsk is built according to BCP 47 which is the current standard for language+script+orthography+dialect etc. coding. be-tarask is being used, like several others the like, because there are two orthographies for Belorussian as well. What's the problem with all these? We're talking about localization, not about creating another wiki!
Greetings.
So...Purodha has made some interesting remarks here that should receive a response. Thanks.
I think there are three things to consider:
- Following standards (almost unconditionally) – not a issue here since we are in practise following IETF language tags =~ BCP47
- Being fair – we already seem to have be-tarask, which is not just legacy
- Do what makes sense – Do the benefits of localisation overweight the effort creating it. In other words are people going to use the localisation and how different is it compared to other supported languages.
I think you have already explained the differences quite well. You have also indicated that there are some høgnorsk articles and there is one wiki in høgnorsk. Could you elaborate how widespread the use is, and is it limited only to certain contexts? For example how many høgnorsk articles there are compared to number of all articles.
We have previously rejected requests for piglatin, lolcat and pirate English, since they are obviously just made for fun and they have no value or benefit outside the few, limited contexts. Same goes for ancient greek, which is essentially a dead language, but for which huge body of texts exists and people still learn it. However it is essentially stopped developing since it is no longer used as language of daily communication. Attempts to revitalize it are to my knowledge purely academical or for fun like the examples mentioned above.
Imho this in part a somewhat philosophical question. While I would certainly support an ancient greek localization because I see a potential for beneficial uses - e.g. when people decide to collect ancient greek poetry in a wiki, I think, navigating the wiki in the same language would be an excellent idea - I am rather hesitant towards likely short lived and likely funny but not serious things like Leet talk or pig Latin - once there are successfull localizatons being used independently at different alife places, I may change my mind.
Otherwise, for any serious, real localization, my proposition goes along the lines that, if someone or somegroup makes the effort to translate hundreds or thousands of text pieces, it's likely worth having it.
In cases of doubt, I suggest to make keeping a localization dependant on it being thourough enough, and being maintained.
Greetings
Localising in a language that is officially dead and does not have the terminology to support user interfaces for computer programs is imho as silly as l33t.
When there is a MediaWiki installation that makes use of a particular dialect of a living language, it starts to make sense to allow for localisation at translatewiki.net. However, this has no effect at all at the availability of such a localisation for a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks,
I agree of course with you about the lack of ancient greek terminology for some or many computerese parts of the interface. Thus I believe an "ancient greek" localization will have to be incomplete to some extent. As long as there is not a wiki of ancient greek content, this needs no further discussion, we can postpone it, maybe for ever :-)
When it comes to living languages lacking terminology relating to the internet, computers, and their technical and social aspects, my position is different. When I began school, even English was lacking almost all of its current computer related terminology, leave alone all other languages. Even a basic word like "file" was associated with paper, or (US) road traffic only. The term "computer file" simply did not exist. So I think, vernacular languages and others need their time to develop their terminologies. Tasks like localizing software may offer opportunities to contribute to that.
Which brings us back: Developing additional modern terminology for long dead languages actually means reviving them. That happened for example in Israel, giving us modern Hebrew. Imho, such processes need broad support in real life to have a chance of success.
The fact that we have articles in Høgnorsk was mainly pointed out to show that it is relevant for the Nynorsk Wikipedia. It is at present rare to see new articles written in Høgnorsk; instead many of those who write Høgnorsk tend to write articles in the "real" namespace (and thus in "official" Nynorsk), rather than articles in parallel. So, even though you will see Høgnorsk written from time to time in debates and in recent changes, there is a low influx of articles. The number of Høgnorsk articles appears to me to be 42 (created by various authors); which is an insignificant number compared to the more than 63 000 articles in Nynorsk. Yet compared to what I wrote about Høgnorsk being relatively frequently used in debates etc.; I wouldn't give this exact number too much weight (focusing on the usage on the wiki as a whole; rather than just in the articles). The external Høgnorsk wiki does in comparison appear to have 135 articles, being three years younger.
You ask about context. The Høgnorsk standard is used just as any modern written standard is; it makes no real sense to talk about context. Høgnorsk is not a modern revival; the term was coined in 1922, and the first organisation working for Høgnorsk was initiated in 1965 (or so it appears to me); whereas the new version of Nynorsk that the movement was "created in response to" was introduced in 1938. The changes were, as hinted to previously, made in order to make Nynorsk more similar to Bokmål - as opposed to reflecting changes in spoken language etc. (which is sort of hard for Nynorsk, as it builds on the Norwegian dialects more or less as a whole).
To sum up: the language is not used for fun (it might be accurate to say that, to some extent, it coincides with the written Nynorsk standard from 1917), nor is it a revival of something that is dead (despite the connotations the year 1917 may give, Høgnorsk is for example often closer to my own dialect than what the "modern" official standards are - and people speaking different dialects would agree with me but with different examples). And indeed as I hinted to earlier, there are a few different organisations working for Høgnorsk - as opposed to it being used only by a few non-associated individuals.
Do I think people will use a Høgnorsk localisation? Yes, absolutely; otherwise I would not bother with this. I bet people who otherwise do not have anything to do with Høgnorsk could want to try out what the user interface looks like, in Høgnorsk, out of pure curiosity; and maybe even stick with it - for example.
What I am looking for is a wiki that is in Høgnorsk. Thanks,
If I understand you correctly, I have already provided that: Mållekken.