The reason I suggested this one is enumerated here (can't copy his text here 'z it's his copyright). Almafeta 10:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to make having a translation of the Tower Babel story even a minor criterion, if by "minor" we mean "any two of these criteria suffice for inclusion". Of course the Babel text would count along with other original and translated texts in the language as part of a "sufficiently large corpus" minor or major criterion. But, if you want to set the minimum corpus size bar this low, why specifically make the Babel text a criterion, rather than "narrative text in the language, of at least the length and complexity to the Tower of Babel story"? -- Jim Henry | Talk 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Even from a conlanging view, the Babel text is a bad choice. Though the language is less stilted than in the paternoster/Lord's Prayer, it is still stilted and biblical and forces the use of verse techniques that is relevant for old biblical Hebrew but not necessarily so for conlangs that aren't even supposed to ever have christian speakers, or human users for that matter. Alternatives include Schleicher's fable and the North Wind and the Sun. The former needs words for sheep and horses or equivalent creatures while the latter needs personification of abstracts and several words for items of clothing (aka. things to hide the body in), both less constraining to a budding conculture than a word for God. Kaleissin 19:37:55, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
- The Babel Test is, however, a de facto standard for conlang comparisons. A word for God is certainly not an artificial restraint to put on a conculture - indeed the converse seems far more unlikely. Of course, it may be conculturally relevant to decide what word for God you're going to use in the translation - the Hebrew uses the Sacred Name. -- 132.185.132.12 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Pete Bleackley
- We can argue about this until the heat death of the universe and still not agree. Irinia Rempt said it well enough in 2001. Anyway, hi Pete, stick around, there lots of articles on linguistics that needs help, and an interesting discussion at Artistic languages on just what a conlang is. -- Kaleissin 10:56:22, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
- Archived links:
- 1. Henning, Jeffrey. "Babel Text Introduction". LangMaker.com. Archived from the original on 2012-02-04.
- 2. Rempt, Irina (4 May 2001). "Re: Concepts of the Babel Text". CONLANG Listserv. Archived from the original on 2013-06-16.
- Jimw338 ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The reason I suggested this one is enumerated here (can't copy his text here 'z it's his copyright). Almafeta 10:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to make having a translation of the Tower Babel story even a minor criterion, if by "minor" we mean "any two of these criteria suffice for inclusion". Of course the Babel text would count along with other original and translated texts in the language as part of a "sufficiently large corpus" minor or major criterion. But, if you want to set the minimum corpus size bar this low, why specifically make the Babel text a criterion, rather than "narrative text in the language, of at least the length and complexity to the Tower of Babel story"? -- Jim Henry | Talk 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Even from a conlanging view, the Babel text is a bad choice. Though the language is less stilted than in the paternoster/Lord's Prayer, it is still stilted and biblical and forces the use of verse techniques that is relevant for old biblical Hebrew but not necessarily so for conlangs that aren't even supposed to ever have christian speakers, or human users for that matter. Alternatives include Schleicher's fable and the North Wind and the Sun. The former needs words for sheep and horses or equivalent creatures while the latter needs personification of abstracts and several words for items of clothing (aka. things to hide the body in), both less constraining to a budding conculture than a word for God. Kaleissin 19:37:55, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
- The Babel Test is, however, a de facto standard for conlang comparisons. A word for God is certainly not an artificial restraint to put on a conculture - indeed the converse seems far more unlikely. Of course, it may be conculturally relevant to decide what word for God you're going to use in the translation - the Hebrew uses the Sacred Name. -- 132.185.132.12 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Pete Bleackley
- We can argue about this until the heat death of the universe and still not agree. Irinia Rempt said it well enough in 2001. Anyway, hi Pete, stick around, there lots of articles on linguistics that needs help, and an interesting discussion at Artistic languages on just what a conlang is. -- Kaleissin 10:56:22, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
- Archived links:
- 1. Henning, Jeffrey. "Babel Text Introduction". LangMaker.com. Archived from the original on 2012-02-04.
- 2. Rempt, Irina (4 May 2001). "Re: Concepts of the Babel Text". CONLANG Listserv. Archived from the original on 2013-06-16.
- Jimw338 ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)