"Passive competence" in a few languages would mean a lot in the world.
Just as you say: "sustain multilingual communities, a task which is most
I don't understand how that would be accomplished - something like a
wikipedia for syntax and words?
> (showing the principle on a working example of the Balcan languages)
Could we perhaps see an example of what we/others would be producing?
> he was anxious on the quality of the work.
> So he agreed and told me what he was doing exactly:
> 1. building a corpus linguistic with minimalisation of the formal
> description - a kind of "root directory" for a language
> 2. didactic requirement on the formalised description - be able to
> turn this into learning material!
> 5. Coworkers or teams would need to: "digest" lexika of about
> 200000 words and complete grammar in order to create tables of
> etymological and structural roots of the language.
Points 1, 2 and 5 need more explanation, or perhaps an example/sample.
> I wonder if it is possible to have something like this happen
> within MS.
I'd like us to explore it. It's highly relevant to what we want to see
in the world.
> It also means: are people there willing to appreciate and support
> leadership - or are we all just "doing our own thing" without
> involvement of others....?
This we might want to deal with: Picsie wrote about "lost 40+ males"
(and generally, people who'd love to change the world if they only knew
how) and Andrius suggests a change from "open people" to "open leaders".
There was this article about free software projects where the author
(maybe it was Miguel de Icaza) suggested people should join existing
projects, rather than create new projects that would take us nowhere.
So one question is "Do we need another wordprocessor?" My answer to the
"passive competence in a few languages" is "Yes, please". Or at least
"Let's explore it".
When you see a clear path of action, then you can lead - at least for
the time being. You may also lead through questions - but questions are
"a clear path of action" too: a question signals a direction in which we
might move. Investigators lead themselves with questions.
As an aside, I'm not sure "leading" is a binary thing - rather I see it
more as a fractal thing, and also as a mutual or even currency thing.
What I mean to say is that we need to practice leading and following and
collaborating - all three! Maybe we might even make a concious decision
about it: I want to devote 20% of my project time to my own project, 45%
to this other project (where someone else is a leader), etc. I can't
speak for myself, but looking at you lot, it looks like it's exhausting
to be a leader all the time! :-)