On 4/13/05, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Serbian word for "milk" is in ekavian
"mleko", but in iyekavian it is
"mlijeko". So, with some markup can bi written like "ml{e|ije}ko";
"bred" is "hleb" in ekavian and "hljeb" in iyekavian, so it
should be
written like "h{l|lj}eb". No one should be forced to use markup, but
there are some people at sr: who would do that.
My English is bad... Sentence "No one should be forced to use markup,
but there are some people at sr: who woudl do that." should be "No one
should be forced to use markup, but there are some people at sr: who
would markup texts." :)
I am sure that there are some people who would both use the markup and
try to force others to do it too. :-)
While I recognize that there are long established traditions favouring
the two script approach to Serbian, I think that the ekavian/iyekavian
distinction is going too far. It makes the idea of a single Serbian
language a joke, and shows the language as incapable of establishing
standards. If the variants in Republika Srpska and Montenegro insist on
their own varieties it turns the whole idea of Serbian nationalism into
a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
For the English Wikipedia to work it had to come to terms with the
differences between British and American English as well as many other
varieties of English. Canadian English, for example, uses a combination
of the two main forms of the language. The same is true of the other
European languages whose native form has varied considerably from what
has become the standard in geographically distant former colonies. The
places that use these other varieties of Serbian are at least contiguous
with the Serbian heartland.
The rest of the world doesn't give a damn about this petty whining
between Serbian nationalist factions. Maybe they should just learn to
get along with each other.
Ec