No, yes, yes.

But then, the same is true of mowp -- regardless of whether or not you consider Moldovan to be a dialect of Romanian, it undeniably "exists", and it is undeniable that some people write it in Cyrillic -- thus, it is a real language which is used on mowp, one which was not "invented" but which is found in books written by people for whom it was the native language and has evolved over the centuries from another natural language, Latin, regardless of whether you call the language "Romanian written in Cyrillic" or "Moldavian".

And obviously, some people would find it useful, namely those people whose primary or possibly even only script is Cyrillic. In addition to the Moldovan population of Transnistria, groups who can be considered to use Cyrillic in some significant capacity include the Moldovan communities in Ukraine and Russia, most of whom emigrated before Latin was made official, although it's probable that the majority would use Latin nowadays anyhow.

Some people have raised the issue that there is low internet access to people who write this language in Cyrillic. That is certainly true. Internet access is poor. But the same is true for Bambara, or Yoruba, or Fulfulde, and yet we are building Wikipedias for them. The hope is that someday they will have a better infrastructure, or that perhaps they can be distributed in print format.

Mark

On 18/03/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Williamson wrote:

...

On 18/03/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:

...

Gerard, you forgot an important thing of this affair: NO MOLDOVANS requested or wanted this Wikipedia.

We have *no* Transnistrian Moldovan contributors who want to write a wikipedia in Cyrillic alphabet.

Its only supporters are Node_ue (the kid in Arizona who barely speaks the language) and a few Russians who support it for ideological/political reasons and who can't contribute anyway, as they don't know the language.

There are no newspapers, no journals, no magazines, no books currently published in Romanian Cyrillic in Transnistria. The children use decades old schoolbooks from the time of the Soviet Union.

Virtually everyone there would like to switch the education system to the Latin alphabet, but dissent is not something easy to do in a totalitarian regime: there are some Romanian/Moldovan Transnistrians in prison since 1991 for political dissent.

So, I'd say to close it now, not because of political reasons, but for the simple fact there are not enough people to contribute to it.

If that's your reason, we should probably close gotwiki as well. Perhaps gvwiki.

Has anyone apart from yourself and a few (insert nation here) nationalists contributed to these? Are they real langauges? Would any real people find them useful?

-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

---

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

Yes, but remember that Cyrillic is a script in decline. The 150,000 or so Moldovans in Transnistria are made to use Cyrillic, and they would prefer to use Latin, as can be seen by the crisis provoked by the decision to remove state funding from Latin-script schools. OK, none of these are reasons against the existence of a Moldovan Wikipedia in Cyrillic per se, but I think your point of this being able to be used for any tangible positive purpose is overstated. This can be seen by the fact that there are no contributors who are interested in adding information to the project at the moment (i.e. native speakers). Even *this* wouldn't be a problem.

As I've noted many times before, Latin alphabet is still taught in private schools in Transnistria. Nobody is being forced to use Cyrillic.

The biggest problem that people don't agree with, however, is that the Moldovan Wikipedia is biscriptal, and in practice is Cyrillic-only (article-wise), when Cyrillic is neither the majority script, nor an official script, while also ideologically representing a symbol of past repression (we can't always look at things in a political vacuum).

No -- what it seems to me is that most people either don't like the fact that Cyrillic is used *at all*, or that the name "Moldovan" is used. Nobody seems to have any of those nuanced feelings you detail.

Mark

Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

The biggest problem that people don't agree with, however, is that the Moldovan Wikipedia is biscriptal, and in practice is Cyrillic-only (article-wise), when Cyrillic is neither the majority script, nor an official script, while also ideologically representing a symbol of past repression (we can't always look at things in a political vacuum).

That's a reason to add more content, not delete existing content.

Chris

Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

...

Yes, maybe. The dispute, however, the way I see it at least, is not over the content per se, but rather the situation it's placed in, that is:

1. That the language is called "Moldovan" (I believe, however, calling it

Romanian and writing with Cyrillic would be even more controversial, Romanian nationalists claim otherwise)

2. That Cyrillic is hosted on the main mo.wiki subdomain, and no Latin

content is hosted on this subdomain (Latin is the official, majority script). Note that Latin is, however, listed first in the interface.

The problem has also, I believe, been augmented by a series of Mark's actions, although I believe they were in good faith (i.e. the interface was changed just so that it uses different terms to the Romanian Wikipedia, and many of the words don't make sense even to Moldovans).

Which is why I think a good compromise would be the subdomain solution. However, it seems that it was agreed that the existing mo.wiki would be locked down.

What we need now are some transliteration rules for Latin <--> Cyrillic for mo:, and the last excuse for not shutting down mo: prior to making it a joint Latin/Cyrillic portal to the ro: data in the Latin alphabet should disappear.

Just to set the ball rolling, with the benefit of _absolutely no_ knowledge of Romanian _or_ Moldovan Cyrillic orthography, but with a bit of Googling, I've produced a very simple first hack at a transliteration table (see below).

Now, these rules are undoubtedly totally wrong, (for a start, there are round trip problems, and my references are inconsistent with one another) but I'm sure that, in the spirit of Wikipedia, the readers of this thread can do much better than me, given a few moments. Perhaps we should put it up on the Wiki, and let people edit it there.

Reading the list archives, I see that [[User:Bogdan Giusca]] has done some work on this, but he hasn't published his PHP script.

-- Neil

----------------------------

The table:

Note: '^' means "start of word", and "$" end of word, and the rules are intended to be applied from top to bottom to reduce ambiguity.

гю <-> ghiu кю <-> chiu ге <-> ghe ги <-> ghi и$ <-> ii$ йю <-> iiu йя <-> iea ке <-> che ки <-> chi ча <-> cea чю <-> ciu ӂа <-> gea ӂю <-> giu ^ы <-> ^î йа <-> ia йе <-> ie йи <-> ii йо <-> io йу <-> iu йы <-> iâ че <-> ce чи <-> ci ы$ <-> î$ ь$ <-> i$ ӂе <-> ge ӂи <-> gi ч <-> ci ю <-> iu я <-> ea ӂ <-> gi а <-> a б <-> b в <-> v г <-> g д <-> d е <-> e ж <-> j з <-> z и <-> i к <-> c л <-> l м <-> m н <-> n о <-> o п <-> p р <-> r с <-> s т <-> t у <-> u ф <-> f х <-> h ц <-> ț ш <-> ș ы <-> â ь <-> ʼ э <-> ă

End of table.

On 19/03/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

Note: '^' means "start of word", and "$" end of word, and the rules are intended to be applied from top to bottom to reduce ambiguity.

...

â = î (all occurances of â in a latin text can be treated as if they

were î during conversion)

...

гю <-> ghiu кю <-> chiu гя <-> ghia кя <-> chia ге <-> ghe ги <-> ghi ын <- îin ым <- îim ии <-> iii$ ий$ <-> ii$ я <-> ^ia ая <-> aia ия <-> iia ыя <-> îia уя <-> uia ея <-> eia оя <-> oia эя <-> ăia ия <-> ia$ ю <-> ^iu аю <-> aiu ию <-> iiu ыю <-> îiu ую <-> uiu ею <-> eiu ою <-> oiu эю <-> ăiu е <-> ^ie ае <-> aie ие <-> iie ые <-> îie уе <-> uie ее <-> eie ое <-> oie эе <-> ăie айо <-> aio ийо <-> iio ыйо <-> îio уйо <-> uio ейо <-> eio ойо <-> oio эйо <-> ăio ке <-> che ки <-> chi ча <-> cea чю <-> ciu ӂа <-> gea ӂю <-> giu че$ <-> ce чи$ <-> ci ай$ <-> ai$ ый$ <-> îi$ уй$ <-> ui$ ей$ <-> ei$ ой$ <-> oi$ эй$ <-> ăi$ ь$ <-> i$ ӂе <-> ge ӂи <-> gi ч <-> ci я <-> ea а <-> a б <-> b в <-> v г <-> g д <-> d е <-> e ж <-> j з <-> z и <-> i к <-> c л <-> l м <-> m н <-> n о <-> o п <-> p р <-> r с <-> s т <-> t у <-> u ф <-> f х <-> h ц <-> ț ш <-> ș ы <-> î ь <-> ʼ э <-> ă

End of table.

Unfortunately, that will leave a lot of words spelt incorrectly. For example, the word "crea" should be "креа" and not "кря" because of syllabification; same for a few other words. Another inconsitent rule is that "obiect" should be "обьект" rather than "обиект", also for quite a few other words again because of its pronunciation.

"Creaţie" should well be spelled as "креацие" and not "кряцие". While "обиект" is wrong.

See, Cyrillic writing for Moldovan is very phonetic. How you pronounce

something changes how you write it. Romanian writing, on the other hand, is a bit more loosely phonetic, and seems unconcerned with distinctions between the different "i" sounds for example, or with writing words differently based on syllable rules.

Another *huge* problem is names. Romanian and Moldovan names should

convert just fine, but other names are a problem. What about "Mihail Sergheievici Gorbaciov"? That should be converted as "Михаил Сергеевич Горбачев" (I think; it might be ~чиов). Or what about "chabad"? That should be "хабад", not "кхабад".

Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- Liviu

On 3/20/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, Liviu, that's exactly what I said. Please re-read my e-mail.

True. Wasn't attentive enough.

Liviu

Mark

On 20/03/06, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 19/03/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

Note: '^' means "start of word", and "$" end of word, and the rules

are

...

...

...

intended to be applied from top to bottom to reduce ambiguity.

...

â = î (all occurances of â in a latin text can be treated as if they

were î during conversion)

...

гю <-> ghiu кю <-> chiu гя <-> ghia кя <-> chia ге <-> ghe ги <-> ghi ын <- îin ым <- îim ии <-> iii$ ий$ <-> ii$ я <-> ^ia ая <-> aia ия <-> iia ыя <-> îia уя <-> uia ея <-> eia оя <-> oia эя <-> ăia ия <-> ia$ ю <-> ^iu аю <-> aiu ию <-> iiu ыю <-> îiu ую <-> uiu ею <-> eiu ою <-> oiu эю <-> ăiu е <-> ^ie ае <-> aie ие <-> iie ые <-> îie уе <-> uie ее <-> eie ое <-> oie эе <-> ăie айо <-> aio ийо <-> iio ыйо <-> îio уйо <-> uio ейо <-> eio ойо <-> oio эйо <-> ăio ке <-> che ки <-> chi ча <-> cea чю <-> ciu ӂа <-> gea ӂю <-> giu че$ <-> ce чи$ <-> ci ай$ <-> ai$ ый$ <-> îi$ уй$ <-> ui$ ей$ <-> ei$ ой$ <-> oi$ эй$ <-> ăi$ ь$ <-> i$ ӂе <-> ge ӂи <-> gi ч <-> ci я <-> ea а <-> a б <-> b в <-> v г <-> g д <-> d е <-> e ж <-> j з <-> z и <-> i к <-> c л <-> l м <-> m н <-> n о <-> o п <-> p р <-> r с <-> s т <-> t у <-> u ф <-> f х <-> h ц <-> ț ш <-> ș ы <-> î ь <-> ʼ э <-> ă

End of table.

Unfortunately, that will leave a lot of words spelt incorrectly. For example, the word "crea" should be "креа" and not "кря" because of syllabification; same for a few other words. Another inconsitent rule is that "obiect" should be "обьект" rather than "обиект", also for quite a few other words again because of its pronunciation.

"Creaţie" should well be spelled as "креацие" and not "кряцие". While "обиект" is wrong.

See, Cyrillic writing for Moldovan is very phonetic. How you pronounce

...

something changes how you write it. Romanian writing, on the other hand, is a bit more loosely phonetic, and seems unconcerned with distinctions between the different "i" sounds for example, or with writing words differently based on syllable rules.

Another *huge* problem is names. Romanian and Moldovan names should

...

convert just fine, but other names are a problem. What about "Mihail Sergheievici Gorbaciov"? That should be converted as "Михаил Сергеевич Горбачев" (I think; it might be ~чиов). Or what about "chabad"? That should be "хабад", not "кхабад".

Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- Liviu _______________________________________________ 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

-- Liviu

Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

The biggest problem that people don't agree with, however, is that the Moldovan Wikipedia is biscriptal, and in practice is Cyrillic-only (article-wise), when Cyrillic is neither the majority script, nor an official script, while also ideologically representing a symbol of past repression (we can't always look at things in a political vacuum).

That's a reason to add more content, not delete existing content.

Chris

If by "adding content" you mean Mark adding loads of incorrect two-line articles, then cheer up, you have your wikipedia. It reminds me of the good old communist Romania, where the agricultural and industrial production figures were artificially inflated by producing crap. Of course, that system was not democratic, so that one person could have his way without good reason against the will of the people. Looks much like today's mo.wiki, where Mark blocks everything just because he wants to.

BTW, someone asked me why I'm against mo.wiki. I am not fundamentally against it. The only thing I say is that it should remain in the private space of Mark while it's a pure creation of Mark.

Otherwise, I request that the american us.wikipedia.org is created! It is right, as some people believe this language exists, and we should add content to it. There are even american dictionaries. Of course, I will fill it up just like Mark does, by copying articles from en.wiki, and by writing two-line crap articles. Unfortunately, I will not be able to produce as many grammar errors per sentence as Mark does. Maybe someone level en-1 would like to join me in promoting americanism against the imperialist brits (the "imperialist" part it adapted from Mark's posts)?

Cheers, Dpotop

--------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Hello Mark,

Monday, March 20, 2006, 11:52:07 PM, you wrote:

MW> 65% of total edits are by anon users.

You're trying to convince us that there's a community of anonymous users ? Ha-ha.

Here's the top, according to that link:

61.248.143.2 -- Seoul, Korea -- Russ, not logged-in, 574 edits (Russ used to transliterate by hand articles from ro.wiki) 193.164.229.102 -- Strasbourg, France -- blanked articles, 78 81.11.225.209 -- Antwerp, Belgium -- reverted blanked articles, 66 24.251.243.233 -- Arizona, US -- Node_ue, 46 213.164.241.16 -- Cluj, Romania -- ro:Danutz, 37 24.201.83.39 -- Montreal, Canada -- en:Domnu Goie, 34 Home05149.cluj.astral.ro -- Cluj -- again ro:Danutz, 20 132.216.68.207 -- Montreal, Canada -- blanked articles, 10 211.186.6.105 -- Korea -- other IP of Russ, 12

These make 80% of the anon edits and none is involved in the creation of actual content.

Almost all of the rest were involved in the endless discussions of the status of mo.wiki. :-)

MW> Average article has 164.179104 words (193.75 for Romanian WP, not a MW> huge difference)

Of course, since the articles are taken from it. :-)