Hoi,
No I did not.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi.
Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com
wrote:
> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense:
> this
> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
> as
> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic,
> and
> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>
> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> proposal has been approved
>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptia…
precissely for its native condition.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l