Hi Gerard,
Certainly there are dialectal differences between Moldova and
Transnistria, but these are very minor and none of them are present in
the written language, which is essentially based (with a handful of
exceptions) on the speech of Wallachia in Romania rather than the
speech of Chisinau or Tiraspol (in Moldova and Transnistria).
One of the only examples:
The initial diphthong in pîine, cîine, mîine (pâine, câine, mâine in
Romania's official orthography) are reduced to a monophthong in most
of Moldova. In Latin alphabet, this isn't usually reflected; if it is
it is considered incorrect, even in Moldova. However, in Cyrillic the
appropriate spelling is the regional one: пыне, кыне, мыне (pîne/pâne,
cîne/câne, mîne/mâne).
However, this is not different between Transnistria and (the rest of?)
Moldova, as I said, while there are certain regional words and minor
dialectal differences between Chisinau and Tiraspol, they are not
reflected in the written language so it is irrelevant.
Mark
2008/11/14 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hoi,
As it is, it will remain in this way unless the powers that be decide
differently.
When you read about the arguments why the Moldovan language was deprecated,
the argument was very much based on what an official Moldovan organisation
did. The people in Transnistria are effectively not part of the remit of
this official organisation and this makes it effectively another political
decision, not that I have a problem with the result because here perfection
is the enemy of the good.
The one question is, to what extend there is a difference between the
Romanian as spoken in Moldova and spoken in Transnistria. If there is a wish
to indicate such a difference, there is no proper way to indicate areas like
Transnistria because they are not part of the ISO-3166-1. Because of this
wilfull ommission the RFC falls flat on its face.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>wrote;wrote:
On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:30, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Because this is one of the most heavily fought
battles that did not
result in a situation that is acceptable to all.
Well, since "mo" is now deprecated, re-naming it "ro-Cyrl" can be
done
without really taking any decision. It's essentially cosmetic.
The issue is that the people behind the
mo.wikipedia are not living
anywhere near the areas involved and they are not native speakers/
writers either. It would have been good when this thing had been
just deleted because the pain would have worn off. However, the
decision was that when a native speaker comes along, it can be
restarted...
I don't understand. Is it to be deleted? Is it to be re-named? If not
the former, then surely the latter.
Michael Everson *
http://www.evertype.com
_______________________________________________
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