On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:51:19 -0500, Olve Utne <utne(a)nvg.org> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati
wrote:
Amongst some truly great discussion, we should
remember pt:, and ask again
if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim
through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that
they all understand both.
[snip]
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading
it with my background
in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be
closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as
an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the
German or French wikipedias instead!
I don't think any of your many analogies about linguistic communities
than can read multiple languages apply here. Bokmål and Nynorsk are
(apparently) separate orthographical conventions for the same spoken
language, which is not true for any of your other examples (e.g.
Alemannic is not spoken like German or French).
That said, if Bokmål and Nynorsk differ orthographically to the
degree that people have said, the idea of having two wikipedias
certainly makes sense to me.
Just one more middling factual point:
[snip]
fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether
the mostly Bokmål
Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the
language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input
In this context, 'no:' is not the ISO countrycode for Norway (NO) but
the ISO 639-1 language code for the Norwegian language (no).
None of the wikipedia subdomains correspond to country codes. For
example, Swedish wikipedia is
sv.wikipedia.org (because Swedish
language has ISO 639 code 'sv'), even though the country code for
Sweden is SE.
Steve