Re: icons for languages

[Gudmund Areskoug <fta algonet se>]

Hi Roozbeh,

Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:58 +0200, Gudmund Areskoug wrote:
>
> > How about a tiny map, indicating the region where that language is 
> > traditionally spoken, with the language name in its own script(s)?
>
> Region maps are also controversial, specially when the language has no
> nation behind it. Kurdish is most famous example. You can't draw a non-
> controversial map of Greater Kurdistan with going head to head with
> Arabs, Turks, Azerbaijanis, and Persians.

I know, that's why I indicated "region", not "country". No matter what 
one thinks of e. g. Greater Kurdistan, it's hard to dispute there's 
currently a substantial group of people living and speaking Kurdish in a 
given geographic location.

As I said in my reply to Tor, perhaps make "is traditionally spoken" "is 
still traditionally spoken" or "is currently regularly spoken", or even 
"is currently expected to be spoken".

If we mix history into it, we'll have a true quagmire...

> You can't simply add all the countries that have native speakers either.
> Country maps are also very controversial (Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabakh,
> Kashmir, Transnistria, South Ossetia, etc. come to mind).
>
> (BTW, the number of speakers is also a very controversial issue, but
> that is in GNOME release notes anyway. Not that I have not objected a
> few times.)
>
> > IMHO, managing to communicate might perhaps be more important than 
> > managing not to step on *anybody*'s toes.
>
> Well, we should see how important those anybodys are. If we don't want
> to alienate them, we shouldn't.

Perhaps the "anybodys" should be challenged to come up with a better 
idea for communicating a language denotation graphically?

Perhaps sensitive groups could have a "hide offense" feature coupled to 
their own locale setting? ;)

Or make linking an icon - any icon the actual user wants - optional?

BR,
Gudmund