“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