Medium density languages - Revision history

Firespeaker at 15:52, 21 June 2011

2011-06-21T15:52:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 21 June 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.		'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere. (Update: it seems to be used in some academic circles, especially computational linguistics?)

	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or the right sort of socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density''')—and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be either part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or the right sort of socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density''')—and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be either part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

Firespeaker: some editing

2009-09-23T03:47:03Z

some editing

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 23 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.		'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.

	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or right socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density''')~~, and~~ as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or the right sort of socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density''')—and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be either part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

	The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density''' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (such as is the case with Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers, and maybe also with Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where the higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists who work on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.		The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density''' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (such as is the case with Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers, and maybe also with Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where the higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work done by a certain number of linguists who work on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.

	Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:		Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:
	* the existence or vivality of internet activity in the language, such as a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias wikipedia in the language];		* the existence or vivality of internet activity in the language, such as a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias wikipedia in the language] (see also my [http://firespeaker.org/wpstats/graphs.html Central Asia wikipedia graphs]);
	* the existence of popular media (local television, music, [http://youtube.com/ music videos], etc) in the language;		* the existence of popular media (local television, music, [http://youtube.com/ music videos], etc) in the language;
	* interest in studying the language outside of communities where it's spoken;		* interest in studying the language outside of communities where it's spoken;
Line 13:		Line 13:
	== Examples ==		== Examples ==

	* Finnish is a high-density language. There are about 6 million native speakers, but lots of linguists have paid attention to the language, and there are a number of native-speaker linguists. Compare to Tatar, which has about 8 million native speakers, but ~~which is~~ medium-density.		* Finnish is a high-density language. There are about 6 million native speakers, but lots of linguists have paid attention to the language, and there are a number of native-speaker linguists. Compare to Tatar, which has about 8 million native speakers, but's medium-density.

	* Kazakh is a medium-density language. There are about 12 million native speakers, but essentially no "Western" linguists among them. Existing materials on the language are of poor quality (with some early-/mid-Soviet-era exceptions, though the focus often isn't of interest to modern western linguists), and data linguists might be interested in is difficult for them to obtain. Compare to Greek, which has roughly the same number of native speakers, but which is high-density (native-speaker linguists, decent materials, accessible data).		* Kazakh is a medium-density language. There are about 12 million native speakers, but essentially no "Western" linguists among them. Existing materials on the language are of poor quality (with some early-/mid-Soviet-era exceptions, though the focus often isn't of interest to modern western linguists), and data linguists might be interested in is difficult for them to obtain. Compare to Greek, which has roughly the same number of native speakers, but which is high-density (native-speaker linguists, decent materials, accessible data).

Firespeaker at 03:40, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T03:40:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:40, 23 September 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or right socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density'''), and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or right socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density'''), and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

	The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (such as is the case with Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers, and maybe also with Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where the higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists who work on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.		The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density''' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (such as is the case with Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers, and maybe also with Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where the higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists who work on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.

	Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:		Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:

Firespeaker at 00:08, 8 April 2009

2009-04-08T00:08:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:08, 8 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.		'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.

	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough to be a "world language" ('''high-density'''), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough speakers or right socio-linguistic situation to be a "world language" ('''high-density'''), and as such, linguists simply ignore it, or worse, aren't even interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest/use/relevance to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

	The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.		The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (such as is the case with Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers, and maybe also with Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where the higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists who work on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.

	Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:		Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:
	* the existence or vivality of internet activity in the language, such as a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias wikipedia in the language];		* the existence or vivality of internet activity in the language, such as a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias wikipedia in the language];
	* the existence of popular media (local television, music, [http://youtube.com/ music videos], etc) in ~~that~~ language;		* the existence of popular media (local television, music, [http://youtube.com/ music videos], etc) in the language;
			* interest in studying the language outside of communities where it's spoken;
	* ...		* ...

Firespeaker at 00:04, 8 April 2009

2009-04-08T00:04:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:04, 8 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.		'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.

	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers to be in no perceived threat of immediate ~~extinction~~ (~~such as "~~low-density" languages), but not enough to be a "world language" ("high-density"), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers or the right socio-linguistic situation to be in no perceived threat of immediate (like '''critical''' languages) or long-term (like '''low-density''' languages) extinction, but not enough to be a "world language" ('''high-density'''), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

	The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.		The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.

Firespeaker at 00:01, 8 April 2009

2009-04-08T00:01:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 8 April 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers to be in no perceived threat of immediate extinction (such as "low-density" languages), but not enough to be a "world language" ("high-density"), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.		The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers to be in no perceived threat of immediate extinction (such as "low-density" languages), but not enough to be a "world language" ("high-density"), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

	The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them,		The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them.

			Some other ideas for criteria for establishing a language as medium-density might be:
			* the existence or vivality of internet activity in the language, such as a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias wikipedia in the language];
			* the existence of popular media (local television, music, [http://youtube.com/ music videos], etc) in that language;
			* ...

	== Examples ==		== Examples ==

Firespeaker: Created page with ''''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can ...'

2009-04-07T23:54:52Z

Created page with ''''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can ...'

New page

'''Medium density languages''' is a term I first heard used by Will Lewis to describe certain languages that linguists don't pay much attention to. I don't know if the word can be attributed to him or not, but I haven't heard it used elsewhere.

The basic idea of a medium-density language is that it has enough speakers to be in no perceived threat of immediate extinction (such as "low-density" languages), but not enough to be a "world language" ("high-density"), and as such, linguists aren't interested in it. Medium-density languages also suffer from an acute lack of materials of interest to linguists, which may be part of the cause for them to be considered medium-density, or just an effect of it.

The main problem with establishing this term is that number of speakers seems not to be the primary criterion. A language may be considered '''high-density'' merely if there is a large enough community of native-speaker linguists (Finnish, Norwegian, and Hebrew, despite low numbers of native speakers; maybe Hungarian, and possibly Turkish, where higher number of native speakers doesn't help), or if there has been work by a certain number of linguists on the language in the linguistic literature because it's somehow "easily accessible". Some low-density languages have especially accessible materials because linguists have paid so much attention to them,

== Examples ==

* Finnish is a high-density language. There are about 6 million native speakers, but lots of linguists have paid attention to the language, and there are a number of native-speaker linguists. Compare to Tatar, which has about 8 million native speakers, but which is medium-density.

* Kazakh is a medium-density language. There are about 12 million native speakers, but essentially no "Western" linguists among them. Existing materials on the language are of poor quality (with some early-/mid-Soviet-era exceptions, though the focus often isn't of interest to modern western linguists), and data linguists might be interested in is difficult for them to obtain. Compare to Greek, which has roughly the same number of native speakers, but which is high-density (native-speaker linguists, decent materials, accessible data).