Talk:Wiki Neo

Transwiki History (main page)
This was originally at Neo.
 * 01:14, 16 July 2005 Aya m (-delete +vfd)
 * 05:16, 12 May 2005 PurplePieman (revert - VfD discussion ongoing, 2 to 1 against)
 * 13:48, 9 May 2005 PurplePieman m (revert)
 * 13:46, 9 May 2005 PurplePieman (revert)
 * 08:36, 9 May 2005 68.226.5.146 (Removing deletion request since 3 out of 4 votes say to keep)
 * 07:59, 28 April 2005 142.161.36.155 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 12:47, 27 April 2005 Naryathegreat
 * 08:18, 26 April 2005 198.54.202.250 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 07:50, 26 April 2005 64.107.201.150
 * 21:03, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38 (→Numbers)
 * 21:00, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38 (→Numbers)
 * 20:59, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38 (→Numbers)
 * 20:58, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38
 * 20:39, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 15:56, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38
 * 14:51, 19 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 03:25, 16 April 2005 68.20.132.226 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 22:33, 12 April 2005 66.234.39.61 (Removed superfluous vfd)
 * 22:30, 12 April 2005 66.234.39.61 (Added vote for deletion pointer)
 * 17:51, 10 April 2005 Naryathegreat
 * 17:51, 10 April 2005 Naryathegreat m
 * 07:27, 8 April 2005 Mauricio Rodriguez Alcala (reverted back to last version by DouglasGreen (comments go on discussion page))
 * 01:40, 6 April 2005 128.87.251.169 (complaint.)
 * 14:14, 5 April 2005 68.232.145.154 (→How to Speak Neo)
 * 03:00, 3 April 2005 DouglasGreen (Added some more words which are known international cognates)
 * 02:28, 3 April 2005 DouglasGreen (Added some words and links to wiktionary)
 * 16:18, 31 March 2005 Hyperlink (category:Languages)
 * 06:39, 30 March 2005 DouglasGreen m (Formatting edits)
 * 18:19, 29 March 2005 DouglasGreen m (Made a list, checked it twice)
 * 18:19, 29 March 2005 DouglasGreen (New page, new language?)

Original talk page follows...

=Transwikied Talk Page=

Why waste effort?
While this shouldn't be on Wikibooks, I can see the authour spent a good amount of time on it. It should be moved rather than deleted.

This is a silly idea
All that's being done is changing English words into nonesense ones. Languages vary by more than vocabulary.


 * This is kinda silly. It's not terribly interesting**

Why not let it be, i see no harm in it.

I advocate deleting this book. There seems to be no place other than this Wikibook that this language exists, and it's not unique or different from a linguistic standpoint.--Chuck Hoffmann 13:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Chuckhoffmann. I suggest we follow the example of... I believe it was Oxford Dictionary... It has to be referenced at least five times, at five different locations (Ideally, must be offline), over five years. Since this is an artificial language, it must also be used in the 'three five' criterion. Otherwise, this is merely an attempt to advertise, in which case it is useless and must be deleted to save bandwidth.

If it fulfills the 'three five' standard, it will be considered of the same status as the artificial language Klingon, Newspeak, or l337. It will be obscure pop culture. Otherwise, deletion is practical.

I say let it stay and not delete it. It's fairly neat. It's not a language that will go anywhere, but every great idea tends to laughed at or dismissed by someone in the beginning. The author appears to have put a lot of thought into it.

Thought is useless without suitable application. We'll keep it for five years... If it does not prove to be useful, applicable knowledge, it is to be removed.

Japanese?
A lot of these words are very similar, or the same as they are in Japanese or how the Japanese change words when they borrow them. I'm not sure if it's a coincidense or not. For example: "kapu", "kofe". Reub2000 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a really cool idea
I love talking to people I know in foreign languages so we can have private discussions in public. What if we could have one with a language that was developed entirely on the internet? This is a hilarious and stimulating idea, and it would be a real shame to delete it. The fact that it's not a real language is absolutely the last reason it shouldn't be acceptable. What about the book on Molvania? Granted, that was intended as a parody of eastern-Eroupean culture, but you get the idea. "Wiki" itself is still somewhat of an experiment, so why not try to write a book on a new language?

other conlangs
It should be moved

Good idea. The best place I know of is http://conlang.wikicities.com/ , although of course I would welcome any other wiki suggestions. --DavidCary 20:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Il also think the idea should not be dissed on principle, and believe the author put quite a bit of effort into it. The Conlang Wikicity looks to me like an ideal place for it to live. 82.66.85.51 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a book
This is not an effort to create a book, but an effort to create a topic for a book. Wiki is an appropriate (and perhaps the only appropriate) place for such an experiment, but wikibooks is not the place for it. I move that the author be given time to report here that the project contents have been moved, and then to delete it from wikibooks. (No user account - MTG - 23 April 2005)

Not much sense
It is clearly an attempt by someone to misuse the WIKI books platform in a childish attempt at introducing a language.

Interesting project
 I think that this is an interesting project, and that Wikibooks is not the appropriate place for it, but also that Wikibooks is probably a more appropriate place for it than anywhere else.

That said, I think that the language is already off on the wrong foot by trying to stick to the lexicons of existing languages. The Roman alphabet is not an inherently logical alphabet, and utilizing it (and English-derived vocabulary) makes the language much easier for people who speak Western European languages to learn. This defeats the purpose of making it a truly international language, since it will pretty much be a product of Western language. Additionally, this also means that the language isn't really going to accomplish anything that other artificial languages, most notably Esperanto, haven't already accomplished (or not accomplished, depending on how you look at it).

Given certain basic assumptions (such as whether the language should be ideographic, phonetic, neither, or both in its writing system, or whether the language should be human-oriented, computer-oriented, both, or neither, how much consideration should be given to aesthetic concerns, etc.), focus should be on making the symbols of the language as distinct (i.e., avoiding the confusion of such symbols as O and 0), and making its grammar as simple and consistent as possible. After all, that is the one advantage that artifical languages have: the ability to be consistent and simple.

As for what a good location for such a project would be: it should really be its own wikiproject, and it definitely should not exist only (or mainly) in the English space of a wiki project, since that also defeats the hope of producing an international language. A language created by only English speakers with Roman letter is not going to be an international language so much as a new version of English: English prime. 

But there's already a language called Neo!
Back in 1961, a Belgian man, Arturo Alfandari, created an international language called Neo. You can read about it here and here. So, this book should either concern itself with the existing Neo, or get a new name to avoid confusion. PurplePieman 08:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 It's hard to argue with that. It's not to say that we can't go ahead and create a language with the same name, but it would be pretty silly to do so. Besides, I think Neo is a dumb name.

Transwiki History (talk page)

 * 21:20, 8 May 2005 Jun-Dai (→But there's already a language called Neo!)
 * 20:14, 7 May 2005 PurplePieman (Neo exists already)
 * 07:58, 3 May 2005 Jun-Dai
 * 19:08, 29 April 2005 202.88.242.89 (Not much sense)
 * 11:51, 24 April 2005 208.141.110.243
 * 12:11, 23 April 2005 82.66.85.51 (→other conlangs)
 * 08:06, 23 April 2005 DavidCary (insults deleted. Constructive ideas added.)
 * 15:37, 22 April 2005 69.136.124.38
 * 14:34, 22 April 2005 Reub2000 (Japanese?)
 * 14:53, 19 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 14:18, 19 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 14:16, 19 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 09:08, 19 April 2005 69.158.86.114
 * 01:38, 19 April 2005 207.35.188.13
 * 01:37, 19 April 2005 207.35.188.13 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 13:51, 17 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 13:47, 17 April 2005 66.75.143.202 (→This is a silly idea)
 * 01:05, 16 April 2005 Chuckhoffmann m (→This is a silly idea)
 * 12:48, 15 April 2005 209.206.141.215
 * 08:34, 15 April 2005 Agarao (→This is a silly idea)
 * 10:30, 12 April 2005 Hughjass16 (This is a silly idea)
 * 04:42, 9 April 2005 69.211.143.58

Improve your conlang skills
I suggest to read Essays on Language Design it's an interesting text for anyone interested in constructed languages.

You need a morphological rules. Which diphthong are valid, which cluster of consonantes are valid? For example, is "mkkgnxk" a valid word?

You need to review the alphabet, why "qu" and not just "ku" or "kw"?

and a long etc..