“Deserving”.

You know what I want? I want a proper document proving that this language 
differs from the other language and in what ways. The ISO 639 RA approved a tag 
for political reasons, and it was not a unanimous vote, and it was not based on 
linguistic reasons. Having a 639 tag is a requirement. It is not the only 
requirement.

Is it too much to ask for actual linguistic data? Some measure of proof that 
the articles simply won’t be clones of one another?

I do not think it is too much to ask. 

Michael 

> On 6 Mar 2018, at 22:36, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In response to MichaeL:
> 
> >> I. The language itself
> >> The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is 
> >> comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian.
> 
> >How have they convinced you? Where are the pages of paradigms? 
> 
> Understand what they have and have not convinced me. They have convinced me 
> that Montenegrin is as entitled to be called a language as Serbian or 
> Croatian—no more, and no less.  You have frequently gone back and compared 
> this situation to the very fine work you did on Western Armenian, but I don't 
> think it's at all comparable. In this case, I am merely saying that 
> Montenegrin is one of the four language standards within the macrolanguage 
> Serbo-Croatian. So: If you were asked, today—leaving aside history—whether an 
> independent Serbian Wikipedia would be eligible under current rules, what 
> would you say? If you would say no, then we're pretty much in the same 
> position. If you would say yes, then I'd like to know why Serbian qualifies, 
> but Montenegrin doesn't. 
> 
> >> Conclusion
> >> Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to other 
> >> Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I 
> >> insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language 
> >> codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various 
> >> English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with 
> >> each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. 
> >> Sadly, that's not the case here.
> 
> >So you want us to enable their divisions?
> 
> In an ideal world, I would prefer not to. But the divisions already exist and 
> the history already exists, both in the world at large and within our WMF 
> microcosm. If you have a way to wipe out these divisions and have everyone 
> work together in harmony on a single Serbo-Croatian project, then please tell 
> me how to do that. I'm saying very clearly: I do not think it is possible. 
> (Do you think the Montenegrins are upset now? Try to close the other three 
> projects and merge them into Serbo-Croatian. Then you'll really hear 
> screaming.) Maybe none of the four projects (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, 
> Montenegrin) should really exist as independent projects. But three do, and 
> we are not going to delete them. And if those three do, the fourth must also; 
> it's no less deserving than the others.
> 
> Steven
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C24962a4176b84b40793b08d5835a19fd%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636559345362022368&sdata=g8ad1X9I9uiZPQZRiISrhGi6y%2Bo%2BU5wPcqtc%2FD9b2Ug%3D&reserved=0
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Langcom Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
> **************************************
> 
> Sent from Outlook
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom


_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply via email to