Hoi,
I think that the best reason to deny this one is because of the problems
we have with NPOV issues given that the gbush speak a dialect of the
Partisan double speak family, a language that also is lacking in an ISO
639 code though in the ISO 639-5 there is a suggestion to use gwb.
Having a Wikimedia project in this language is problematic as the
pronunciations are so diverse given that the speakers of gwb often
suffer from a forked tongue, a handicap that resulted in no fixed
spelling and often in misunderstanding. There is a seasonality in the
quality of pronunciations, particularly around something called
"heylecsssiozzz" it is virtually impossible to pin down what is said.
One word often heard during the hight of this season is "PRooomissssezz"
So, untill this subject has been studied to death, it is better to leave
this one alone; we do not do original research.
Thanks,
GerardM
Mark Williamson wrote:
I wasn't aware speakers of that variety were
literate.
Mark
On Apr 1, 2005 2:30 PM, Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)last-straw.net> wrote:
>Sounds good to me, but what about en-us-gbush?
>
>On 1 Apr 2005, at 10:21 pm, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I would like to request the creation of en-us-jwales: and en-us-node:
>>for the two separate varieties of American English known as "Jimbwian"
>>and "Nodelish".
>>
>>Although they are very similar, there are some important differences.
>>
>>Some examples:
>>
>>Jimbwian: "My name is Jimbo Wales."
>>Nodelish: "My name is not Jimbo Wales."
>>
>>Jimbwian: "I am the founder of Wikipedia."
>>Nodelish: "I am not the founder of Wikipedia."
>>
>>Jimbwian: "I am married and have a daughter."
>>Nodelish: "I am a single teenager."
>>
>>Unfortunately there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between Jimbwian and
>>Nodelish, so machine translation is impossible.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>