In response to MichaeL:
I. The language itself
The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
How have they convinced you? Where are the pages of paradigms?
Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced me that Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or Croatian—no more, and no less. You have frequently gone back and compared this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I don't think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether an independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules, what would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian qualifies, but Montenegrin doesn't.
Conclusion Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to other Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. Sadly, that's not the case here.
So you want us to enable their divisions?
In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already exist and the history already exists, both in the world at large and within our WMF microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have everyone work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then please tell me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it is possible. (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the other three projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really hear screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But three do, and we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the fourth must also; it's no less deserving than the others.
Steven
Michael
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wiki...
------------------------------
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5 **************************************
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
“Deserving”.
You know what I want? I want a proper document proving that this language differs from the other language and in what ways. The ISO 639 RA approved a tag for political reasons, and it was not a unanimous vote, and it was not based on linguistic reasons. Having a 639 tag is a requirement. It is not the only requirement.
Is it too much to ask for actual linguistic data? Some measure of proof that the articles simply won’t be clones of one another?
I do not think it is too much to ask.
Michael
On 6 Mar 2018, at 22:36, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
In response to MichaeL:
I. The language itself The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
How have they convinced you? Where are the pages of paradigms?
Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced me that Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or Croatian—no more, and no less. You have frequently gone back and compared this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I don't think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether an independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules, what would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian qualifies, but Montenegrin doesn't.
Conclusion Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to other Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. Sadly, that's not the case here.
So you want us to enable their divisions?
In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already exist and the history already exists, both in the world at large and within our WMF microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have everyone work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then please tell me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it is possible. (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the other three projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really hear screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But three do, and we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the fourth must also; it's no less deserving than the others.
Steven
Michael
Subject: Digest Footer
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wiki...
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
Sent from Outlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Hear hear!! Thanks, GerardM
On 7 March 2018 at 11:46, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
“Deserving”.
You know what I want? I want a proper document proving that this language differs from the other language and in what ways. The ISO 639 RA approved a tag for political reasons, and it was not a unanimous vote, and it was not based on linguistic reasons. Having a 639 tag is a requirement. It is not the only requirement.
Is it too much to ask for actual linguistic data? Some measure of proof that the articles simply won’t be clones of one another?
I do not think it is too much to ask.
Michael
On 6 Mar 2018, at 22:36, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
In response to MichaeL:
I. The language itself The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is
comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
How have they convinced you? Where are the pages of paradigms?
Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced
me that Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or Croatian—no more, and no less. You have frequently gone back and compared this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I don't think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether an independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules, what would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian qualifies, but Montenegrin doesn't.
Conclusion Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to
other Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. Sadly, that's not the case here.
So you want us to enable their divisions?
In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already
exist and the history already exists, both in the world at large and within our WMF microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have everyone work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then please tell me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it is possible. (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the other three projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really hear screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But three do, and we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the fourth must also; it's no less deserving than the others.
Steven
Michael
Subject: Digest Footer
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% 2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C24962a4176b84b40793b08d5835a19fd% 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636559345362022368&sdata= g8ad1X9I9uiZPQZRiISrhGi6y%2Bo%2BU5wPcqtc%2FD9b2Ug%3D&reserved=0
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
Sent from Outlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Indeed. Every time I asked the proponents of the Montenegrin Wikipedia for reliable sources for the differences, they couldn't provide them.
I did love the example of the literacy textbook that included that extra letters. For me this is a reliable source that these letters are actually used in educational materials, and that as a spelling standard Montenegrin is distinct (and that's why I am also going to add it as a target language in translatewiki, for example). However, this can be resolved in the existing Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias by mentioning the alternate spellings in the article body or by creating redirects. I haven't yet seen a convincing argument that this wouldn't work for the actual readers.
A spelling guide document produced by a governmental institution in Montenegro was brought up several times. It's a normative document, so it's also a valid source for confirming the existence of a different spelling standard, but it's not a valid justification for creating a whole new project.
The political argument about the anti-Montenego point of view of the editors in the Serbian Wikipedia is not a valid reason to create a new project. The problems may be real, but the Language committee is not supposed to resolve them. That's precisely why we should stop creating *more* precedents for political forks.
I'm still open to other reliable source that would prove this language's uniqueness or the inappropriateness of the current Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias for Montenegrin people.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2018-03-07 12:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
“Deserving”.
You know what I want? I want a proper document proving that this language differs from the other language and in what ways. The ISO 639 RA approved a tag for political reasons, and it was not a unanimous vote, and it was not based on linguistic reasons. Having a 639 tag is a requirement. It is not the only requirement.
Is it too much to ask for actual linguistic data? Some measure of proof that the articles simply won’t be clones of one another?
I do not think it is too much to ask.
Michael
On 6 Mar 2018, at 22:36, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
In response to MichaeL:
I. The language itself The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is
comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
How have they convinced you? Where are the pages of paradigms?
Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced
me that Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or Croatian—no more, and no less. You have frequently gone back and compared this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I don't think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether an independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules, what would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian qualifies, but Montenegrin doesn't.
Conclusion Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to
other Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. Sadly, that's not the case here.
So you want us to enable their divisions?
In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already
exist and the history already exists, both in the world at large and within our WMF microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have everyone work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then please tell me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it is possible. (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the other three projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really hear screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But three do, and we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the fourth must also; it's no less deserving than the others.
Steven
Michael
Subject: Digest Footer
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% 2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C24962a4176b84b40793b08d5835a19fd% 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636559345362022368&sdata= g8ad1X9I9uiZPQZRiISrhGi6y%2Bo%2BU5wPcqtc%2FD9b2Ug%3D&reserved=0
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
Sent from Outlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom