[I will assume that in your previous post it was Moldovan that you
mentioned, and not Montenegrin.]
Romanian, yes. But Moldovan - a linguistic entity? It depends on what you
mean by "linguistic entity". If it is "language" that you mean, this
than disputable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language> (as
mentioned earlier, one
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Stati>linguist supports this
thesis). Current content on the Moldovan Wikipedia (for
cannot qualify as belonging to a Moldovan language. It is _not_ the Moldovan
dialect written in Cyrillic. It is standard Romanian written in
Cyrillic(with stylistic faults, in the previous example). How can the
Committee consider standard Romanian written in Cyrillic as a separate,
distinct linguistic entity? This content might qualify as belonging to a
Moldovan language, but this is a pure Soviet times POV taken directly from
the Central Committee <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee>. And
I don't think the WMF would agree accepting such a stance.
What concerns the people.. The people living in Transnistria now and
Moldovans before share the same "Moldovan language" (probably with certain
differences during years, due to political changes). This is irrelevant to
my arguments concerning the linguistic aspects of the issue.
WMF will never tell Romania how its street signs should look like, Romania
cannot tell WMF how a wiki page should look like.
Romania doesn't. Romanians do. And more important,
perhaps, Moldovans do.
If you pointed out this remark, I most definitely hope that someone from
Transnistria speak up on the Wikipedia mailing-list in some near future.
On 2/12/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Appreciate that Romanian and Montenegrin are understood as the names for
linguistic entities. In your reply you relate to people. You forget to
the people living in Transnistria.