[Foundation-l] mo.wikipedia.org

Fri Nov 14 19:11:27 UTC 2008

Hi Gerard,

Certainly there are dialectal differences between Moldova and
Transnistria, but these are very minor and none of them are present in
the written language, which is essentially based (with a handful of
exceptions) on the speech of Wallachia in Romania rather than the
speech of Chisinau or Tiraspol (in Moldova and Transnistria).

One of the only examples:

The initial diphthong in pîine, cîine, mîine (pâine, câine, mâine in
Romania's official orthography) are reduced to a monophthong in most
of Moldova. In Latin alphabet, this isn't usually reflected; if it is
it is considered incorrect, even in Moldova. However, in Cyrillic the
appropriate spelling is the regional one: пыне, кыне, мыне (pîne/pâne,
cîne/câne, mîne/mâne).

However, this is not different between Transnistria and (the rest of?)
Moldova, as I said, while there are certain regional words and minor
dialectal differences between Chisinau and Tiraspol, they are not
reflected in the written language so it is irrelevant.

Mark

2008/11/14 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> As it is, it will remain in this way unless the powers that be decide
> differently.
>
> When you read about the arguments why the Moldovan language was deprecated,
> the argument was very much based on what an official Moldovan organisation
> did. The people in Transnistria are effectively not part of the remit of
> this official organisation and this makes it effectively another political
> decision, not that I have a problem with the result because here perfection
> is the enemy of the good.
>
> The one question is, to what extend there is a difference between the
> Romanian as spoken in Moldova and spoken in Transnistria. If there is a wish
> to indicate such a difference, there is no proper way to indicate areas like
> Transnistria because they are not part of the ISO-3166-1. Because of this
> wilfull ommission the RFC falls flat on its face.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:
>
>> On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:30, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>> > Because this is one of the most heavily fought battles that did not
>> > result in a situation that is acceptable to all.
>>
>> Well, since "mo" is now deprecated, re-naming it "ro-Cyrl" can be done
>> without really taking any decision. It's essentially cosmetic.
>>
>> > The issue is that the people behind the mo.wikipedia are not living
>> > anywhere near the areas involved and they are not native speakers/
>> > writers either. It would have been good when this thing had been
>> > just deleted because the pain would have worn off. However, the
>> > decision was that when a native speaker comes along, it can be
>> > restarted...
>>
>> I don't understand. Is it to be deleted? Is it to be re-named? If not
>> the former, then surely the latter.
>>
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>