ISO 639 does not define standard languages. Language standardisation
is a very complex issue. ISO 639 only defines codes for languages and
dialects, and gives definitions for them.
You seem to have the view that any language must be standardised
before it can be used; this is not the case, most of the languages in
the world do not have a standard form. We grow up speaking a language,
if there is a standard form it only matters for school and work
usually. Most literate people of the world write very similarly to how
they talk, and a great number of them read and write in languages with
no officially-defined standard.
Mark
On 12/12/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
For the record: You did not answer my questions
concerning the ISO standard you commented upon as a
solution to the MO-RO problem.
The WMF has been great in allowing people to use
their own language.
When the language is mutually understandable, like
for American and
British English (and all the other variations) we
have a history of
keeping things together.
Do you imply that MO and RO are not mutually
understandable?
The
politics around the
Moldovan project make that people do not accept that
some need Cyrillic
content. The arguments used are political and have
nothing to do with
linguistics.
More than 6 months ago, I said that I will drop my
case as soon as *one* native moldovan supports a
cyrillic mo.wiki. As of today, I still have to see one
on wikipedia.
So, in a sense, we do agree: As soon as Cyrillic
content is needed, it should be provided. The
difference between you and me is that I seem to note
that there's currently no need for such content.
In my personal opinion, the
quality of both the
mo.wikipedia and the ro.wikipedia cannot be
considered good when it is
impossible to integrate and to serve the needs that
are expressed by the
existence of both projects.
I'm sorry, but I do not understand your point.
You are talking of integration. But what better
integration do you seek, when the rogue editors that
created mo.wikipedia resorted to simply copying
articles from ro.wikipedia and claiming they are in a
different language?
You also talk of needs. The needs expressed by
ro.wikipedia are clearly materialized in the 40000+
articles it generated. But whose needs are represented
in mo.wikipedia? Where is the community?
Dpotop
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to
www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l