Well Node, you and your separatist cronies, so as to - approximatively -
cite you, accuse me and my unionist buddies, so as to exactly cite your
politeness, of not being coherent. OK.
I am not going to lose much time on this discussion.
On 19/01/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com > wrote:
Yes, and
on Wikipedia, people try to work together to make it more
neutral. However, Pavel was not open to that.
This is why Moldovan Wikipedia ought to be deleted. It can never be a
*neutral* place. It is from the very start of it a POV. [...]
That's a weird
conclusion. If you want to just exprewss your opinions,
that's fine, but if you're trying to actually respond coherently to
somebody else's e-mail, your responses should follow directluy and
logically (or at least demonstrably, if not logically) from the
previous e-mail. Please, read the other messages in this thread.
It's not that weird a conclusion, Node. You have never been open to that
(not to my knowledge, and maybe only once). So that such blame should not be
thrown on Moldovans or Romanians. Satisfied of coherency?
Now, about making Wikipedia a neutral place and the mo.wiki issue. A trully
neutral solution - in my opinion, and I will express my opinions as soon as
they get in my mind either answering to your email or not as long as these
are relevant - would be the following.
- *Ro.wiki keeps its Romanian content as normal*.
- *ro-cyr.wiki gets content in Cyrillic Romanian* using this alphabet
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Cyrillic_alphabet ), if some
one deems it necessary to have such a Wikipedia. It is, by the way, the
alphabet that Grigore Ureche used to write his works (and not the Moldovan
Cyrillic alphabet), but about this later. Ro.wiki should not get
biscriptal because this alphabet is not representative of modern Romania and
you will not find Romanians able to actually use this script.
It was used till 1860, when Moldavia united Wallachia to create Romania
- *mo-cyr.wiki gets its content in Moldovan Cyrillic* using this
alphabet (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet), invented in
the 1930s by good old godfather Stalin, if you deem necessary to keep this
Wikipedia. It should probably be named more appropriatly something like
Moldovan/Romanian Cyrillic, but we logically cannot have two Romanian
Cyrillics.
*Please note* that all these three scripts are used for writing the one and
same language - Romanian (and Node, you can dispute this as long as you
wish, but you cannot pronounce yourself on this matter without having any
knowledge in Romanian). Of course the language evolves in time and the
Romanian used by Grigore Ureche differs quite a lot from the one used by,
say, Mihai Eminescu, who is also Moldovan and the national most known
Romanian poet (he is someone of a hero in Romania).
- *mo.wiki becomes only a redirect *- written in Romanian - guiding
you towards the existing Romanian related Wikipedias. It does not get any
content as a Wikipedia for the Romanian language already exists. Romanian
Cyrillic would not be appropriate for the same reasons: not representative
in any way. Moldovan Cyrillic just does not fit with modern Moldova. As soon
as we got our independance, we immediately got rid of this Cyrillic script.
What concerns Transnistria, it is the 14th, Russian 14th army that decides
which language is more appropriate to the local population.
Again, are you trying to respond to my e-mail? Your
points are all
valid and if you meant to make them independently, I will be happy to
respond to them, but they don't seem to fit as responses to things I
said.
Your point was: it is Pavel to blame for the similarity of mo.wiki and
ro.wiki. My point was: the two Wikipedias are inherently similar. And it was
so even before Pavel. What else do you want me to explain you?
Furthermore, this mo.wiki is full of errors [...]
low-quality content.
Please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
The entire point of a Wikipedia is that anyone may edit it. If you see
an error, FIX IT! Don't just complain that there are so many errors
here, it's so horrible... either do your part and try to fix it, or
stop complaining -- you have no right to complain if you don't try to
help with the problem.
Don't worry Node. If you have still not noticed it, I am currently trying
from all my powers to FIX IT! By making this content be moved or deleted.
Aftewards, maybe, just maybe, I will consider contributing to this
Wikipedia. Although I doubt. And you have still not said a word on the fact
that there is not one Moldovan - natively speaking this true Moldovan
language of yours (because this is not my language) - to contribute to this
Wikipedia and make it grow and try to make its contents survive. Or it is
them who you are defending? As I cannot recall myself one native speaker of
this true Moldovan language here on Wikipedia.
Romanians are
not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
I would dispute that.
As long as you wish.
Now, please take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova#Demographics
, especially at the correctness of the 2004
census: "About 2004 census".
That page says 0 about languages. Just ethnicities. We are talking
about languages. You and your unionist buddies too often confuse the
two. Don't forget that there are ethnic Moldovans who don't speak the
Moldovan language well, only Russian, and also Ukrainians or Russians
who don't speak Ukrainian or Russian well only Moldovan. You can't
equate language with ethnicity, especially not in modern Moldova.
How come 0? What about this: "*The precision of numbers about
nationality/ethnicity and language was questioned.*"? (take this
http://www.azi.md/news?ID=31931 and this
http://www.azi.md/news?ID=31416 for
reference). This census concerned languages as well, although I couldn't
find statistics on this. Not yet. Although, logically, if one calls himself
Romanian, he speaks Romanian. Russian - Russian. Ukrainian - either Russian
or Ukrainian. Gagauz -
Gagauz. About Moldovans - when someone tells you he is Moldovan
and you ask him about the language he speaks, he will mostly certain give
you one answer: Moldovan. However, big however, he will think of the
Moldovan dialect that he is speaking day-to-day, and not of the Romanian
language he is writing in any day-to-day documents, at school, etc. And
still, my point stays: these millions of people (which cannot phisically be
more than 3.6 million; which in half makes 1.8 millions - ça va for millions
disagree) were not necessarily able to openly declare their ethnic (which
comprises language) origin. Otherwise, if you dispose of other statistics,
please tell me.
First of all this is the the name given by the
Moldovan Constitution to
the
I, for one, would debate such a comparison. It was selected out of the
entire two constitutions for just the 3 or 4 lines which are similar.
If you look at constitutions of, say, Portugal and Spain, you can
probably find the same thing.
Well, Node. I have to give you the bad news: I have just taken a look at
Moldovan (
http://e-gov.moldova.md/moldova(test).nsf/bdedfca988b2db3c85256207004f45a9/…)
and Romanian (
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=1#t1c0s0a1)
constitutions, and article by article these are identical. Not necessarily
always the content, but the language for sure. It is clear that the Moldovan
one is a mere copy of the Romanian.
Spain and Portugal - take a look:
http://www.parlamento.pt/const_leg/crp_port/crp_97_1.html#Artigo1 and
http://www.constitucion.es/constitucion/castellano/titulo_preliminar.html.
By far these are not identical. If you think of other countries, tell me.
I'll check them too.
Secondly[...]Moldovan.
Whether or not you write in the real Moldovan language is up to you.
In Rep. Moldova, not many people do. It actually seems more common in
Romanian Moldova, where you can find it in poetry and such.
Thirdly - how did you come up with a "real Moldovan language"? Which one is
this? I would like to know, because being a Moldovan I am supposed to know
it and practice it.
Unfortunately Moldovans seem to use Wallachian writing exclusively
since about 100 years ago.
Do you understand what you are saying? Where did you come up with this
language also? For the reference, it is Romanian that was always used in
Wallachia, and that Wallachia is used only to distinguish the historical
region called "Ţara Românească" - Romanian Country -, and modern Romania
that is more or less the combination of Wallachia, Transilvania and
Moldavia. I recall you that Moldavia is united with Romania and that in
Moldavia they strangely enough write in Romanian and have nothing against it
and speak either Romanian or something one may with difficulty classify as a
Moldavian dialect. And that Moldova - present time Moldova - by mistake is
not part of Romania. Moldova historically is a Romanian province!
Thirdly ... contents are disputed.
Always imposed?
Always imposed: beginning with 1930's - Stalin (MASSR), beginning with 1940
- same Stalin (MSSR), beginning with 1989 - Russian 14th Army
(Transnistria).
In Transnistria, some of the Latin schools were
re-opened.
Please cite your sources. I couldn't find one word on this in Moldovan
electronic newspapers. Better said nowhere on the net.
If Moldovans love the Latin alphabet so much, why are some
kids (in fact, the majority) Moldovan in Transnistria
still going to
the Cyrillics schools?
Funny question. Why did you go to school? But, so that I not be personal,
why did I go to school? Because as a kid I was told to do so. Why the
parents give their children to school? Because they want that their children
have a future, that they get a minimum of education - the minimum that
Transnistria under Putin can offer. And sometimes when it comes the question
of the kids future, you don't ask much questions regarding the language.
And Node, do you know [...].html
Anittas wrote that absurd paragraph. If you take an actual look at the
chronicles, Ureche never said anything so apparent. Instead, he mostly
said things about a close kin, or mutual understanding, never anything
about them being the same language.
Strange. Ro.wikipedia also agrees with Anittas absurdities: (
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigore_Ureche#Opera - don't search too much,
last paragraph). And even stranger, Grigore Ureche also agrees with these
absurdities: „Rumânii, câţi să află lăcuitori la Ţara Ungurească şi la
Ardeal şi la Maramoroşu, de la un loc suntu cu moldovénii şi toţi de la Râm
să trag." (
http://www.scriptorium.ro/carti/grigore_ureche/grigore_ureche-letopisetul_t…).
So take a close look, Node. And the last time I wrote not basing myself on
the en.wiki article, but on what I read in "Pentru limba noastră
moldovenească" (
http://www.scriptorium.ro/carti/grigore_ureche/grigore_ureche-letopisetul_t…).
OK. Enough of this chit-chat. I will answer to subsequant replies of
yours only if you
manage to get well on my nerves.
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>
Regards,
Liviu