Hello GerardM,
I am glad you agree with this source, because it says
1. Moldovan from Bessarabia=Romanian
2. Moldovan from Transnistria=Romanian with different
script.
So, it's not a question of different languages, but
one of biscriptality for a single language called in
two different ways for political reasons.
This is what wikipedia should do: a biscriptal wiki.
And, coming back to the fact that meta:User:Millosh
blocked me on meta. What you wrote in your message
makes me think that Millosh is indeed wrong, and that
you should:
1. Unblock me, because I corrected false info.
2. Block Millosh, who pushed his POV using admin
rights in an improper way.
Dpotop
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jacky PB wrote:
At the
risk of going off-topic, there is an
interesting paper on this
topic by the guy who does Omniglot. See:
http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/revolutionary_scripts.htm
Nice article. The part on the "Moldovan language"
is a
succinct and NPOV presentation of the problem.
The
author is not affiliated with either part.
Citations
are given.
Dpotop1
Hoi,
It is indeed a good presentation of many linguistic
issues. It
explicitly says that both the Moldovan and the Trans
Sinistrians have
made it a violation to use anything but "their"
script. It also makes it
quite clear that the middle ground is denied by both
parties. The
article explains that politics and the use of
different scripts can and
does lead to a growing apart of what used to be a
languages continuum.
Given the article there is no denying that both the
Latin and the
Cyrillic script are used for what is still
considered to be one
language. It provides absolutely no argument why we
should not support both.
Thanks,
Gerard
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com