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