Gerard, Since you are keeping your cards so close to your chest, it is hard to know what you are “looking into”.
> You are comparing two things that are not the same. The Norwegian issue is > prior to our committee and therefore has never been ours to decide. I really don’t see how the two situations aren’t the same. I see this: A crisis. A wiki exists with two sets of articles and half the community can’t read the other half’s texts. There simply must be a split, because transliteration does not work on technical and structural grounds. A solution: Split the wiki into two. Method A: Add a new “azb". Get the Arabic-script texts moved there. Leave “az" alone. We’re done. Problem solved. Method B: Add a new “azb", and a new “azj" Causes more trouble than it is worth. Whether “no" vs "nb/nn" existed before our committee doesn’t matter — or I certainly don’t see how it does. SIL’s “macrolanguage” category may be practical for some work. It is not practical with regard to Latin-script "az". I believe that there is no difference between “no" vs "nb/nn" on the one hand and “az" vs "azj/azb” on the other. Wikipedia needed “nb” and created it. Wikipedia left “no” alone. We should do the same here. Create “azb” and leave “az” alone. On 12 May 2015, at 11:06, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > When you start using the fundamental word, you stop any and all conversation. > You have been pushing me and now you push even more using this strong > language... Not good, not nice, not helpful. There are other issues involved > and what you in effect do is tell me that I have no option but to agree, I really really want you to be open with the members of this committee. You’ve exercised a veto and we don’t know why. You’re looking into something and we don’t know what. That behaviour is not helping anyone understand what you are doing. > Sadly the one way I can disagree is by just saying no and, so far I have with > the proviso that I am in the process of looking into things. When I am done, > I reserve my right to continue my disagreement Why? For a principle? I’m interested in resolving a crisis and structurally the “no”~"nb/nn" and “az”~"azj/azb” scenario I described does, in fact, solve it. If there are other issues, none of us but you seem to know what they are. Is it pushing to ask you to tell us? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
