Hoi,
The question is not whether they are separate languages, the question is
are they mutually exclusive. At this moment MediaWiki does not support
two scripts in one installation. This will become possible when the
coding for Multilingual MediaWiki has been finished and integrated in
MediaWiki proper. When this is possible, it is TECHNICALLY possible to
have one wiki with two scripts but can I trust you to leave the Cyrillic
content in peace?
What Millosh wrote on Meta is not false information. If anything you are
pushing your POV. For you it is not acceptable that there is a
http://mo.wikipedia.org. The ferocity in the arguments is such that I do
not believe that we will have any time soon after the completion of MLMW
a unified wiki for all the forms of the greater Romanian language.
Thanks,
GerardM
Jacky PB wrote:
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