| | ::: For Phrygian we have abundant original attestations, as opposed to CG which is attested second-hand by a non-native speaker. If there is attestation - it can be added, in the original script. CG is problematic because 1) it's mostly not an attestation (list of words supposedly used 2) quality of that list (the non-speaking author that compiled it as well as his informants of dubious competence). The extent of our knowledge of the language itself is not a relevant factor for inclusion. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] 16:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC) | | ::: For Phrygian we have abundant original attestations, as opposed to CG which is attested second-hand by a non-native speaker. If there is attestation - it can be added, in the original script. CG is problematic because 1) it's mostly not an attestation (list of words supposedly used 2) quality of that list (the non-speaking author that compiled it as well as his informants of dubious competence). The extent of our knowledge of the language itself is not a relevant factor for inclusion. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] 16:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
| | + | * I suggest we handle it as a subproject of Chinese, since it's no more Gothic than it is Chinese, plus I'm sure China would be thrilled to take ownership. [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 18:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) |
