Re: ceqli

John Cowan:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > As for Garth's explanation, Ceqli itself is a
> > published work, so its use in a published work of fiction should
> > not be criterial, and Ceqli does have a small community of
> > supporters; the spokenness of a language is not a necessary
> > condition for its being of interest.
>
> No, indeed.  But:
>
> 1) Wikipedia is meant to represent a secondary source, not to contain
> original content (and the line between secondary and primary is hard
> to draw when the same person writes both), and
>
> 2) It's conventional not to write Wikipedia articles about one's own
> creations (as opposed to the topics of one's research, which *is*
> encouraged).
>
> I would have no problem with an article on Ceqli written by someone else.
Okay. Fair point. (I find myself wondering, though, where the boundary
between research and creation lies. For example, Arc Pair Grammar was
a grammatical theory created by Paul Postal, not really understood by
anybody else, but definitely deserving an encyclopaedia entry. Would
Postal be allowed to write the entry for Arc Pair Grammar? What then
about (say) Livagian (assuming hypothetically that it had been
published), which could be viewed as a practical expression of a
theory of how optimally to realize a usable logically explicit and
unambiguous language?)

--And.

Reply