Hoi,

You are comparing two things that are not the same. The Norwegian issue is prior to our committee and therefore has never been ours to decide.

When you start using the fundamental word, you stop any and all conversation. You have been pushing me and now you push even more using this strong language... Not good, not nice, not helpful. There are other issues involved and what you in effect do is tell me that I have no option but to agree, Sadly the one way I can disagree is by just saying no and, so far I have with the proviso that I am in the process of looking into things. When I am done, I reserve my right to continue my disagreement

Thanks,

Gerard

On 12 May 2015 at 11:55, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:

On 12 May 2015, at 09:17, Mjbmr <mjbmri@gmail.com> wrote:

> After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.

I oppose this. That would break many existing links. We also did not move Bokmål from no to nb.

In the bibliographical world, az is used primarily for the national language of the state of Azerbaijan. The overwhelming majority of text in any Azeri language is in Northern Azeri, whether in Cyrillic or in Latin. Southern Azeri does not have the same place in the educational system of Iran, for instance. There is much less text in it.

We should add azb and move Arabic-script articles there and leave az alone.

I have fundamental opposition to moving az to azj.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom