Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-06/Modern Latin as a LDL or extinct language

This is a confusing vote
What is the status quo? And what are the consequences of treating Modern Latin as an "extinct language"? I thought there were WDLs (a listed set of languages) and LDLs (anything not on the WDL list). This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The status quo is that modern Latin is treated as a WDL, without this being mentioned in policy. The difference between extinct languages and LDLs seems to be mentioned at WT:CFI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the status quo is that there's no consensus how to treat modern Latin. Some people treat it like a WDL, others like an LDL or an extinct language. There is no consistency. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of RFV discussions in the past few years in which it has been treated as an LDL or as an extinct language? I don't know of any such discussions. If they don't exist or if there are only one or two, then I don't think your description of the status quo is correct. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes, which is post-1500 and was kept despite being used only once. Unfortunately, Category:RFV result (archived) isn't separated into languages, and it's too big for me to just browse through looking for modern Latin; I only found this one because it starts with A. In addition, I can point to the case of birotula automataria (discussion now at Talk:birotula), which was deleted not because there was consensus to delete it, nor because it was completely uncited (it was listed in a dictionary), but because the person who closed the discussion and deleted the entry is of the opinion that modern Latin ought to be treated as a WDL, and therefore treated it that way. A different admin might well have closed the discussion differently and kept the entry. One admin's personal opinion does not amount to the status quo. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The protracted discussion at Requests for verification/Non-English also makes it abundantly clear that there is no consensus on the issue. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This unfortunately seems to be another situation like the situation of entries for ad-hoc romanizations of Russian and other languages mentioned here, where we don't even all agree on what the existing practice is. >.> A minority of users think the status quo is one thing (to allow entries for ad-hoc romanizations of Russian etc, or for modern Latin nonces), despite the evidence and majority view being that it is something else, with the only exceptions being cases that the minority added without others noticing, which obviously don't change the status quo any more than the instances of years-old vandalism we occasionally find mean that our policy is actually to allow vandalism. Now like then, the minority even set up votes to codify the existing practice and tried to argue that if those votes didn't attain sufficient supermajorities to pass, that changed our practice, despite the usual understanding being that only a majority vote to change the status quo changes it (and other votes — in this case, this vote — have been written in that direction). If one option or the other in this vote were to reach consensus, it would settle things by codifying the more permissive approach. If neither option has consensus, the dispute remains, but the fact that no-one seems to be trying to add romanized Russian anymore does suggest we'll move past it. - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep calling the way you wish things were "the status quo" and your own opinion "the majority view" without the slightest bit of evidence that it is actually the status quo and the majority view. It's pure wishful thinking to say it's the status quo that modern Latin is treated as a WDL, when it's only treated that way by 3 or 4 editors who want to treat it that way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you say that, given that it describes what you are doing, wishfully insisting that the view you and only a handful of other users would like to be the case is somehow the status quo. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, properly inflected forms and genders have to be attested too. And thus, for example, the single unusual feminine at Citations:Google does not attest a German feminine gender. Yet in case of a doubftul feminine form passed WT:RFV with a single New Latin citation. Even now there are just two and not three citations with a feminine form given at Citations:anomalos. If (New) Latin would indeed be a WDL, a third citation would be needed or the (doubtful or New Latin) feminine forms would have to be removed. (BTW: Some examples of such adjectives with attested feminine forms in ancient times are:, , , and  , , , , , and they would imply a feminine *anōmalos instead of (*)anōmala.)
 * The satus quo is not only what was decided at WT:RFV but also what's listed in the entries, both in the translation section of English entries and in Latin entries.
 * As for birotula automataria, it's noted that "there weren't any citations in birotula automataria". So the deletion doesn't support the claim that New Latin is WDL. If New Latin would be an LDL, birotula automataria would have to be deleted as well. -Slœtel (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion says that birotula automataria is listed in a dictionary of modern Latin. If modern Latin is an LDL, that's sufficient reason to keep it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Difference between extinct language and LDL?
What's the difference between an extinct language (EL) and an LDL? By WT:LDL all ELs should be LDLs. By WT:CFI the difference between the two should be "use in a contemporaneous source ... or one mention" (EL) versus "one use or mention" (LDL). contemporaneous should be an ambiguous term like contemporary which here could mean either "of the times when the language was used" or "of the present age". For modern Latin both times should overlap, so in any case it should in practice make no difference whether modern Latin is declared to be an EL or an LDL. Or do I miss something? -Slœtel (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Compromise?
Again I ask, why not make a compromise by making New or contemporary Latin neither WDL nor LDL but something in-between?

Some suggestions: This could also be expanded like also excluding book-on-demand or print-on-demand sources or some unreliable sources collected on a list. Or it could be reversed: There could be a list of soures which can be used for creating a contemporary Latin entry based on a single usage. Sources not on the list then can't be used for creating a Latin entry based on a single usage. For example, printed Nuntii Latini could be a source to attest a New Latin term based on a single usage. But some other random nameless source alone with contemporary Latin in it could not attest a New Latin term. Some rationales: Modern Latin from ca. 1500 till 1850 could be a WDL, but even for that there are problems as for example seen in WT:RFVN: On 4th May 2016 three citations were added but until now, which is more than a year later, the citations wheren't (fully) checked whether or not they attest a certain meaning. -Slœtel (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Usenet or google groups results could be excluded for New Latin, unless there are three citations (which is enough for a WDL).
 * Mentionings could be excluded for attesting New Latin terms. Depending on the interpretation of WT:CFI this is at the moment already the case because of WT:About Latin.
 * WT:CFI's shoulds ("should maintain a list" for mentionings, "should have its source(s) listed", "a box ... should be included") are sometimes understood or treated as recommendations and not as musts. At least for New Latin this could be changed into musts - though it should be better to changed it into musts in general.
 * Contemporary Latin is not a WDL and it's not constructed like Elvish, Klingon, Esperanto or Volapük.
 * speaks of a deponent verb, meaning "to sing", and attested in Ovid. This is the meaning in the third cite. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, in all three cites the meaning is "to sing" (you could say "to modulate"); first and third cites are deponent uses; the second is a passive past participle with a passive sense, so that would point to an active verb . However there are a few deponent verbs that behave just like that: their passive past participle has or can have a passive meaning, and not an active one like we would expect. I say we move this to . --Barytonesis (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of it's history and prestige Latin is often taught in schools and used (and possibly abused) in different ways.
 * Unreliable contemporary Latin usages should be restricted somehow (compare the elsewhere mentioning hypothetical *Iphonum). For this there is the first suggestion.
 * English words and phrases like, , , for example, should not attest anything Latin. So New Latin entries shouldn't be based on some random mentionings. For this see the second and also the third suggestion.
 * Latin's history and prestige could be the reason to justify the discrimination between Latin and LDLs.


 * Another compromise I've considered suggesting is to require 2 uses, or 2 cites if we want to allow mentions. That's a direct compromise between people who think the requirement is 1 and people who think it's 3. Should we allow mentions of modern Latin terms? (AFAICT we never have, despite the claims of the people who think modern Latin is governed by the same criteria as extinct or LD languages, and) AFAIK the reason for allowing mentions from approved sources to attest other languages is that they're assumed to accurately record the language as it's used, whereas someone mentioning/claiming that iPhon(i)um is Latin for iPhone, in the absence of uses, doesn't seem to be recording something that's actually used. But perhaps, as you suggest, the requirement that sources of mentions be approved and the non-approval of modern sources is enough to exclude such mentions. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This middle ground would sit better with me. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Appendix
Would it be conceivable to store insufficiently attested terms in an Appendix? I would like to have birotula automataria somewhere, though not necessarily in the main space. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We did use to have an appendix for Irish words that had failed RFV before Irish was made an LDL. Unfortunately, it's been deleted now and I can't remember what it was called. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)