Indeed. Every time I asked the proponents of the Montenegrin Wikipedia for
reliable sources for the differences, they couldn't provide them.

I did love the example of the literacy textbook that included that extra
letters. For me this is a reliable source that these letters are actually
used in educational materials, and that as a spelling standard Montenegrin
is distinct (and that's why I am also going to add it as a target language
in translatewiki, for example). However, this can be resolved in the
existing Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias by mentioning the alternate spellings in
the article body or by creating redirects. I haven't yet seen a convincing
argument that this wouldn't work for the actual readers.

A spelling guide document produced by a governmental institution in
Montenegro was brought up several times. It's a normative document, so it's
also a valid source for confirming the existence of a different spelling
standard, but it's not a valid justification for creating a whole new
project.

The political argument about the anti-Montenego point of view of the
editors in the Serbian Wikipedia is not a valid reason to create a new
project. The problems may be real, but the Language committee is not
supposed to resolve them. That's precisely why we should stop creating
*more* precedents for political forks.

I'm still open to other reliable source that would prove this language's
uniqueness or the inappropriateness of the current Serbo-Croatian
Wikipedias for Montenegrin people.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2018-03-07 12:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com>:

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

Reply via email to