Indeed. Every time I asked the proponents of the Montenegrin Wikipedia for
reliable sources for the differences, they couldn't provide them.
I did love the example of the literacy textbook that included that extra
letters. For me this is a reliable source that these letters are actually
used in educational materials, and that as a spelling standard Montenegrin
is distinct (and that's why I am also going to add it as a target language
in translatewiki, for example). However, this can be resolved in the
existing Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias by mentioning the alternate spellings in
the article body or by creating redirects. I haven't yet seen a convincing
argument that this wouldn't work for the actual readers.
A spelling guide document produced by a governmental institution in
Montenegro was brought up several times. It's a normative document, so it's
also a valid source for confirming the existence of a different spelling
standard, but it's not a valid justification for creating a whole new
project.
The political argument about the anti-Montenego point of view of the
editors in the Serbian Wikipedia is not a valid reason to create a new
project. The problems may be real, but the Language committee is not
supposed to resolve them. That's precisely why we should stop creating
*more* precedents for political forks.
I'm still open to other reliable source that would prove this language's
uniqueness or the inappropriateness of the current Serbo-Croatian
Wikipedias for Montenegrin people.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2018-03-07 12:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>om>:
“Deserving”.
You know what I want? I want a proper document proving that this language
differs from the other language and in what ways. The ISO 639 RA approved a
tag for political reasons, and it was not a unanimous vote, and it was not
based on linguistic reasons. Having a 639 tag is a requirement. It is not
the only requirement.
Is it too much to ask for actual linguistic data? Some measure of proof
that the articles simply won’t be clones of one another?
I do not think it is too much to ask.
Michael
On 6 Mar 2018, at 22:36, Steven White
<Koala19890(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
In response to MichaeL:
>> I. The language itself
>> The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is
comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
How have they convinced you? Where are the pages
of paradigms?
Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced
me that
Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or
Croatian—no more, and no less. You have frequently gone back and compared
this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I
don't think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that
Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage
Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether
an independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules,
what would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same
position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian
qualifies, but Montenegrin doesn't.
>> Conclusion
>> Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to
other
Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other;
would I insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate
language codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the
various English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist
with each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit,
too. Sadly, that's not the case here.
So you want us to enable their divisions?
In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already
exist and the
history already exists, both in the world at large and within
our WMF microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have
everyone work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then
please tell me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it
is possible. (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the
other three projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really
hear screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian,
Bosnian, Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But
three do, and we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the
fourth must also; it's no less deserving than the others.
Steven
Michael
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%
2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C24962a4176b84b40793b08d5835a19fd%
7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636559345362022368&sdata=
g8ad1X9I9uiZPQZRiISrhGi6y%2Bo%2BU5wPcqtc%2FD9b2Ug%3D&reserved=0
------------------------------
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
**************************************
Sent from Outlook
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom