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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
