Now, Mark supports creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
And people on Meta thinks that the situation with Zlatiborian and Montenegrin is similar.
And people talk about Zlatiborian seriously.
I was thinking and I can say that I am not oppose to creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia no articles about "Zlatiborian language" on English Wikipedia. And this is my last email/edit about this issue.
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree. If the relevancy of Wikipedia is not important for them, what should I do? Just to keep relevancy on Serbian and/or to work on some more relevant project.
I was thinking and I can say that I am not oppose to creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia no articles about "Zlatiborian language" on English Wikipedia.
I can't make sense of this sentence. What does it mean?
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree.
I'm beginning to think that Zlatiborian may be to Serbian as Scots (sco) is to English and Plattdüütsch (nds) and Alemannic (als) are to German: commonly considered dialects rather than separate languages, and without an official orthography.
I used to think they're just hoaxes, too, and indeed the first articles created in Plattdüütsch were just jokes (i.e. clearly aimed at being funny to German speakers rather than at conveying encyclopedic knowledge/information to Plattdüütsch speakers); [[nds:Nokieksel]] is still like that and hasn't changed since 2nd June 2003. Now, I'm not particularly active on sco, nds or als, so I don't know if this has changed and whether those Wikipedias are now treated more seriously, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're still mainly a playground for dialectal silliness.
Nevertheless, I don't care that they exist. I think a "playground" can help increase productivity in the serious projects, but even if it doesn't, a humorous joke encyclopedia is a productive endeavour too.
Timwi
On 11/5/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I was thinking and I can say that I am not oppose to creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia no articles about "Zlatiborian language" on English Wikipedia.
I can't make sense of this sentence. What does it mean?
no=nor
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree.
I'm beginning to think that Zlatiborian may be to Serbian as Scots (sco) is to English and Plattdüütsch (nds) and Alemannic (als) are to German: commonly considered dialects rather than separate languages, and without an official orthography.
I am too tiered to talk about Zlatiborian anymore. I understand that people can believe into hoaxes and I don't have anything against making Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
If you want to support jokes, support it.
If WMF supports such kind of hoaxes, WM SCG would not be the part of WMF (yes, we would find some other name). And not because of any "nationalist feeling" but because it seems that it is more important what two fools say the what a number of other reasonable people, including experts. In this sense, Wikipedia is just a joke for exporting all kinds of personal frustrations. Do it without us.
BTW, two fools are Mark and Djordje, not Timwi :)
On 11/6/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 11/5/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I was thinking and I can say that I am not oppose to creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia no articles about "Zlatiborian language" on English Wikipedia.
I can't make sense of this sentence. What does it mean?
no=nor
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree.
I'm beginning to think that Zlatiborian may be to Serbian as Scots (sco) is to English and Plattdüütsch (nds) and Alemannic (als) are to German: commonly considered dialects rather than separate languages, and without an official orthography.
I am too tiered to talk about Zlatiborian anymore. I understand that people can believe into hoaxes and I don't have anything against making Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
If you want to support jokes, support it.
If WMF supports such kind of hoaxes, WM SCG would not be the part of WMF (yes, we would find some other name). And not because of any "nationalist feeling" but because it seems that it is more important what two fools say the what a number of other reasonable people, including experts. In this sense, Wikipedia is just a joke for exporting all kinds of personal frustrations. Do it without us.
Timwi wrote:
Nevertheless, I don't care that they exist. I think a "playground" can help increase productivity in the serious projects, but even if it doesn't, a humorous joke encyclopedia is a productive endeavour too.
Allemannisch is not a dialect.
Gerrit.
Gerrit Holl wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Nevertheless, I don't care that they exist. I think a "playground" can help increase productivity in the serious projects, but even if it doesn't, a humorous joke encyclopedia is a productive endeavour too.
Allemannisch is not a dialect.
What was the purpose of that message?
Timwi wrote:
Gerrit Holl wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Nevertheless, I don't care that they exist. I think a "playground" can help increase productivity in the serious projects, but even if it doesn't, a humorous joke encyclopedia is a productive endeavour too.
Allemannisch is not a dialect.
What was the purpose of that message?
I don't think als: is a playground for dialectal silliness, perhaps for language-silliness but that's not the same.
Gerrit.
Gerrit Holl wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Gerrit Holl wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Nevertheless, I don't care that they exist. I think a "playground" can help increase productivity in the serious projects, but even if it doesn't, a humorous joke encyclopedia is a productive endeavour too.
Allemannisch is not a dialect.
What was the purpose of that message?
I don't think als: is a playground for dialectal silliness, perhaps for language-silliness but that's not the same.
We all know that the difference between "dialect" and "language" is a political one, and linguistically meaningless. That Allemannic is *widely considered* a dialect, at least in Germany, is indisputable.
Timwi
...linguistically, it's not entirely meaningless.
Sociolinguistically, it means quite a bit -- "dialect" vs "language" is a very interesting part of sociolinguistics -- who considers their own speech a dialect, and who considers the speech of others as a dialect? Is it correlated at all with cognation percentages or other more concrete measurements of similarity? Are people who speak a "language" likely to have better attitudes about their speech than people who speak a "dialect"? Are people who are branded as speakers of a "dialect" by others, but claim themselves to speak a "language", likely to be more fiercely independent?
Outside of sociolinguistics, "dialect" does have some degree of meaning. It's defined in the strictest sense as "a regional variety of a language". Of course, if one were to try to separate all of the speech varieties of the world into dialects and languages, that division wouldn't much help.
So many people like to try to assign arbitrary divisions based on lexicostatistics. Nationalists will try to set it so that their own variety is a "language"; most linguists would set it somewhere between 70% and 90% cognate. Now, there are "languages" with more than 90% cognation, such as Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian, Bokmål-Danish... and there are "dialects" with less than 70% cognation, such as some of the Sinitic languages, some "dialects" of German, Italian, and French, some Berber "dialects", etc.
Mark
On 06/11/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
We all know that the difference between "dialect" and "language" is a political one, and linguistically meaningless. That Allemannic is *widely considered* a dialect, at least in Germany, is indisputable.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army. Thanks, GerardM
On 11/6/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
...linguistically, it's not entirely meaningless.
Sociolinguistically, it means quite a bit -- "dialect" vs "language" is a very interesting part of sociolinguistics -- who considers their own speech a dialect, and who considers the speech of others as a dialect? Is it correlated at all with cognation percentages or other more concrete measurements of similarity? Are people who speak a "language" likely to have better attitudes about their speech than people who speak a "dialect"? Are people who are branded as speakers of a "dialect" by others, but claim themselves to speak a "language", likely to be more fiercely independent?
Outside of sociolinguistics, "dialect" does have some degree of meaning. It's defined in the strictest sense as "a regional variety of a language". Of course, if one were to try to separate all of the speech varieties of the world into dialects and languages, that division wouldn't much help.
So many people like to try to assign arbitrary divisions based on lexicostatistics. Nationalists will try to set it so that their own variety is a "language"; most linguists would set it somewhere between 70% and 90% cognate. Now, there are "languages" with more than 90% cognation, such as Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian, Bokmål-Danish... and there are "dialects" with less than 70% cognation, such as some of the Sinitic languages, some "dialects" of German, Italian, and French, some Berber "dialects", etc.
Mark
On 06/11/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
We all know that the difference between "dialect" and "language" is a political one, and linguistically meaningless. That Allemannic is *widely considered* a dialect, at least in Germany, is indisputable.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army.
I thought it was a navy! :)
Wait a minute... I have an "Australian English" babel template on my userpage, there is an article on Australian English (probably with subarticles), and we have an Army, Navy, Air Force and SAS! Surely we can create an Australian English Wikipedia! :-D
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army.
I thought it was a navy! :)
That would mean that mountain people could not have their own language.
Well, is there such a thing as a "Swiss Lanuage"? No! They speak French, German and/or Italian, depending on which part of Switzerland they are from! :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Was it not you who was arguing for Alemannic linguistic independence?
Alemannic is, after all, the most widely-spoken language in Switzerland.
Mark
On 06/11/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army.
I thought it was a navy! :)
That would mean that mountain people could not have their own language.
Well, is there such a thing as a "Swiss Lanuage"? No! They speak French, German and/or Italian, depending on which part of Switzerland they are from! :)
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ27PEbMAAH8MeUlWAQgeFggAjhq4fOcjuWmNJlIzkQfaCXw9aG0+d7Pw f3CiMOwBym1i7scK7J3y2B6ZkmmZ+BPP36kIkTcX4PX2OTTF2oK94dxcIwKaUHnQ x7H7y+ORQz26Rr3Ckm/RGqd1kNt2BCKXiM4L7zEEau+zPpb+6Frk0f4F7TeHxUkR dQMlsFTG8TTPc1/mSb022z/Qa9YyI8z5KXORF2OH0wm+KocWW190oO9oE3cS2Dst dyodpIjVRpqJmaCxplH66v3OhAkHPJ7Peb3Zkgug2TGj5Xxh7kHn41gf603e5gQA IoUNUIN4Uee9H727E3lxnHmumSHprDDi5ZyIZKmLRkE9DDiTDhBhNQ== =yBiM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
Was it not you who was arguing for Alemannic linguistic independence?
Alemannic is, after all, the most widely-spoken language in Switzerland.
I don't remember. Link/ quote (including PGP signature)?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 06/11/05, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army.
There goes Icelandic! Oops.
-- http://palnatoke.org * Ole Andersen, Copenhagen, DK CV: http://palnatoke.org/CV.doc ICQ: 86989486 phone: +45 36 47 31 59
Ole Andersen wrote:
On 06/11/05, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A language is a dialect with an army.
There goes Icelandic! Oops.
And Catalan...
Gerrit.
Now, Mark supports creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
Yes. You and your Serbian nationalist crew have been repressing the Zlatiborian national identity for far too long. As you can find in many credible sources, Zlatiborian is an independent language with an independent history, spoken by the proud people of Mt Zlatibor, whose history is glorious and decidedly separate from that of Serbia.
And people on Meta thinks that the situation with Zlatiborian and Montenegrin is similar.
The only difference is that Montenegro has some degree of political autonomy, whereas Serbian oppression continues to this day in Zlatibor. I think it is high time you quit trying so hard to repress the collective Zlatiborian national identity, and allow Zlatiborians their Wikipedia in peace.
I was thinking and I can say that I am not oppose to creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia no articles about "Zlatiborian language" on English Wikipedia. And this is my last email/edit about this issue.
I have to agree with Timwi -- what on earth does this sentence mean?
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree. If the relevancy of Wikipedia is not important for them, what should I do? Just to keep relevancy on Serbian and/or to work on some more relevant project.
The Zlatiborian language is not a hoax. It is the independent language of a glorious peoples with a long and proud history.
Cheers Mark
On 11/6/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Now, Mark supports creation of Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
Yes. You and your Serbian nationalist crew have been repressing the Zlatiborian national identity for far too long. As you can find in many credible sources, Zlatiborian is an independent language with an independent history, spoken by the proud people of Mt Zlatibor, whose history is glorious and decidedly separate from that of Serbia.
Mark, you are completely fool. There are no repression against Zlatiborians because there are no Zlatiborians (except in regional sense). Note that I am an anarchist.
And people on Meta thinks that the situation with Zlatiborian and Montenegrin is similar.
The only difference is that Montenegro has some degree of political autonomy, whereas Serbian oppression continues to this day in Zlatibor. I think it is high time you quit trying so hard to repress the collective Zlatiborian national identity, and allow Zlatiborians their Wikipedia in peace.
No. Again, you think that you know a lot because you were talking with another fool who doesn't like Serbian Wikipedia.
Note that this person (and the only person, I would ask for checking for sock puppets), Djordje Bozovic wrote about Montenegrin language on Serbian Wikipedia like strong Serbian nationalist.
If people from community want to support hoaxes, I completely agree. If the relevancy of Wikipedia is not important for them, what should I do? Just to keep relevancy on Serbian and/or to work on some more relevant project.
The Zlatiborian language is not a hoax. It is the independent language of a glorious peoples with a long and proud history.
This is not a hoax for you because you are a fool. And you are working hard to spread disinformation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 11/6/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
The Zlatiborian language is not a hoax. It is the independent language of a glorious peoples with a long and proud history.
This is not a hoax for you because you are a fool. And you are working hard to spread disinformation.
Ah, so the people who deleted all the articles about it on the English wikipedia as "hoaxes" were wrong then! Well! Better get them undeleted! I look forward to reading about the differences between Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, as well as the long-established Zlatiborian literature!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
We are probabbly off of Wikimedia. Today we would talk about making friendly organization, not Wikimedia SCG.
On 11/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 11/6/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> >>The Zlatiborian language is not a hoax. It is the independent language >>of a glorious peoples with a long and proud history. > > > This is not a hoax for you because you are a fool. And you are working > hard to spread disinformation. >
Ah, so the people who deleted all the articles about it on the English wikipedia as "hoaxes" were wrong then! Well! Better get them undeleted! I look forward to reading about the differences between Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, as well as the long-established Zlatiborian literature!
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ23xpbMAAH8MeUlWAQhuTgf7BRzCnoBykfqQ647RQjq9Ij4AYlalCEW+ k57nZcS6DDz/DnioCthpdh6z4S1XPFntO4bR9MVhFxVXanBX0mM6+36IKniZzm/G gMWSCkdOabqXL7kmOjE0iAd9ecz/E2bmESYfsnXcI++cOJbaC41zn+UZwkx6R6nc JGcqCp/Vd7iVjz77hRlIIBC2+iojhSO92KLMFcWDR6WR7xwimZbtwI1FGMTnq8wx D2gFvewHmwLVa1yrsvg08RONvJv7l61j+gPbam8fi8P1AL0hkg0F8p+EaLyRE4Io ZZ0Ta40eRYhgOOtlc8G+beydcJINhyVKNEzRxS/8vlgGhaFDWsEU6w== =XjaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Well, for one, Serbian can use either Latin or Cyrillic alphabets, while Zlatiborian has always used only the Cyrillic Alphabet.
Then, there are Zlatiborian unique words like "odma", or unique grammatical forms like "svojijem", "Vikipedijinijem"...
There are also huge differences where there are two alternative ways to say the same thing, that exist in both languages, but one is very much more common in Zlatibor and the other is more common in Serbo.
ex. SC "ako smatrate da je...", Z "ako mislite da je...", SC "iskorisceni" = Z "upotrijebljeni", S "pisete" Z "pisati".
There is also some Zlatiborian grammatical forms, which are real in Serbocroatian, but are different in which form they represent: SC "citate" - Z "citati"...
I would go on, but I think it would be better if you asked a real Zlatiborian like George.
Mark
On 06/11/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 11/6/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> >>The Zlatiborian language is not a hoax. It is the independent language >>of a glorious peoples with a long and proud history. > > > This is not a hoax for you because you are a fool. And you are working > hard to spread disinformation. >
Ah, so the people who deleted all the articles about it on the English wikipedia as "hoaxes" were wrong then! Well! Better get them undeleted! I look forward to reading about the differences between Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, as well as the long-established Zlatiborian literature!
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ23xpbMAAH8MeUlWAQhuTgf7BRzCnoBykfqQ647RQjq9Ij4AYlalCEW+ k57nZcS6DDz/DnioCthpdh6z4S1XPFntO4bR9MVhFxVXanBX0mM6+36IKniZzm/G gMWSCkdOabqXL7kmOjE0iAd9ecz/E2bmESYfsnXcI++cOJbaC41zn+UZwkx6R6nc JGcqCp/Vd7iVjz77hRlIIBC2+iojhSO92KLMFcWDR6WR7xwimZbtwI1FGMTnq8wx D2gFvewHmwLVa1yrsvg08RONvJv7l61j+gPbam8fi8P1AL0hkg0F8p+EaLyRE4Io ZZ0Ta40eRYhgOOtlc8G+beydcJINhyVKNEzRxS/8vlgGhaFDWsEU6w== =XjaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Milos Rancic wrote:
Mark, you are completely fool.
Milos, if you are arguing with a fool. What does that make you?
On 11/7/05, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Mark, you are completely fool.
Milos, if you are arguing with a fool. What does that make you?
:)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org