Talk:Лимба молдовеняскэ

Де ла Википедия ын лимба молдовеняскэ

• Nu există o "limbă moldovenească", nici măcar un dialect cu acest nume, cu atât mai puţin cu litere chirilice, introduse de sovietici în procesul de rusificare. Ceea ce se vorbeşte în Rep. Moldova este un regionalism al limbii române. Consultaţi un lingvist obiectiv. După cum nu există o Wikipedie pentru Anglia, alta pentru America sau Noua Zeelandă, ci una singură en.wikipedia.org, tot aşa trebuie să rămână o singură ro.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia este o enciclopedie "multilinguală", nu "multistatală". Orice altă tentativă contrazice realitatea lingvistică şi este, cu siguranţă, de rea credinţă. Moby Dick de la ro.wikipedia 10.Apr 2005, 15:14 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant. Does either America or New Zealand declare their language as "American" or "New Zealandic"? No, they declare a common official language. As for the Cyrillic alphabet, don't you know that it is the first alphabet ever used for the Romano-Moldavian language, and it fits it better phonetically? The day there is a single Romanian Wikipedia is the day that ro.wiki accepts articles in Cyrillic (which is still preferred by 1% of speakers of the Romano-Moldavian language worldwide, and 10% in Moldova). Although Urdu and Hindi are the same language, we have separate Wikipedias for them.

No, this is not the same situation as here: Urdu and Hindi share the grammar, but about 40% of the vocabulary is different: Urdu has many Arabic and Persian loan-words, while Hindi has Sanskrit borrowings. (bogdan)

Hindi has no Sanskrit borrowings. At least, not when you speak it. They are artificially inserted into the formal written language (not informal though) to make it a more "Hindu" language. But if you use the Arabic borrowings in written Hindi, you will still be understood.

The same is true of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian.

These languages are not identical. (bogdan)

Yes, they are, excepting very very very minor differences in spelling and vocabulary. The same is true with Moldovan and Romanian - Moldovan says î instead of Romanian â, there are a few minor vocabulary differences. --Node ue 01:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, this Wikipedia has already submitted that Latin-alphabet content in the "Moldavian language" is to be found only at ro.wiki, and we do not declare that they are separate languages.

Look, I need to really get an issue made clear here. We're not arguing over whether Moldovan is a separate language or not. That's irrelevant. The fact is that by founding a Wikipedia at mo.wiki domain, in Moldovan Cyrillic, you're acknowledging that there is indeed a separate Moldovan language. Which is perfectly OK. That's not what me and other ro.wiki contributors are arguing against. We're just saying that the Moldovan Wikipedia should not be in Cyrillic script but rather in Latin script, because that is the official and majority script of Moldova. Writing content in Cyrillic is perfectly fine, but it shouldn't be done at the main subdomain, it should be done at a separate subdomain to reflect its status as a minority script. What you're doing now is saying: ro.wiki is for Latin script, mo.wiki is for Cyrillic script, and mo.wiki has one relatively prominent link to ro.wiki. Don't you realise how biased that segregation is? You're nominating Cyrillic script as the script for the Moldovan Wikipedia when in fact it is a minority and unofficial script. Ronline 13:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know that. But our contention at mo: is that Romanian and Moldovan are the exact same language, just with different names. So, mo: is used for Romano-Moldavian in Cyrillic, and ro: is used for Romano-Moldovan in Latin. If you want to make mo: into a redirect and turn Romanian into a dual-script Wikipedia, that is a good solution that we will agree to. But it is probable that Romanian nationalism and anti-Slavic feelings will prevent this. Danutz made the following statements and recognitions:

• Moldovan is really just Romanian
• 10% of Moldovans write this language in the Cyrillic alphabet
• Nobody writes Romanian in Cyrillic

As you can see this is a contradiction. If you want to make the ludocrous assertion that Moldovan and Romanian are different languages, you can battle that out with other ro.wikipedians who will disagree with you. --Node ue 01:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 POV 2 The Moldovan section of Wikipedia must be deleted 3 тебе 4 Blocare 5 Majoritatea locuitorilor Rep Moldova sunt Români basarabeni, vorbitori uzuali ai graiului moldovenesc a limbii române cu grad de rusificare diferit, mai mare în mediul urban şi mai mic în rural. 6 Suntem Români şi punctum.

[edit] POV

Incidentally, this article is heavily biased, it only presents one side of the argument regarding the Moldovan "language". If you don't write your Wikipedia with a NPOV, you'll kill your own project in no time, Cyrillic or no Cyrillic. (Gutza)

If you don't think it's NPOV, then fix it. It does not say "Moldovan is separate from Romanian"; it doesn't even touch on the issue. It says Moldovan is a language, but it doesn't say it's a separate language. It is a language, for sure, and it is official in Moldova, for sure, and its ISO code is mo and mol, for sure, and these are all stated here. Is it separate from Romanian? A complex question, but the answer is "probably not". But it has not been added here yet because no contributors have felt they can deal with it in an NPOV manner, and just using the content from ro: isn't good because the content on ro: is not NPOV. --Node ue 01:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it is my guess that you can't even read it. "Limba moldoveneasca (coduri ISO 639: mol, mo; codul Ethnologue: nu are), este limba oficiala din Republica Moldova. Existenta acestei limbi ca limba de sine statatoare este disputata. Guvernul moldovean sustine ca limba moldoveneasca este o limba de sine statatoare si ca a sustine ca limba moldoveneasca este acelasi lucru cu limba romana este o dovada de expansionism romanesc. Limba este vorbita de aproximativ 3.5 milione de oameni din Moldova, din care 3 milione o vorbesc ca si limba materna." Please forgive my errors, I did it quickly and I didn't use Romanian letters. But I think that this article is definitely not POV. Before you criticise articles in Cyrillic, learn it. --Node ue 01:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gutza, aici are dreptate Node_ue. Acelaşi articol este disponibil şi în ro.wiki şi en.wiki, şi chiar este un articol foarte neutru, care prezintă ambele puncte de vedere şi nu îl favorizează pe nici unul. --Danutz

Cel putin intr-un sens sigur nu are dreptate, el asuma ca n-am inteles articolul si ma boscorodeste aiurea. Insa revenind la topic, nu vad unde se prezinta punctul de vedere care spune ca limba moldoveneasca este o nascocire. Scrie intr-adevar ca este disputata, dar de explicat nu se explica decat atitudinea heavy-handed a guvernului moldovean. Anyway, daca Danutz este ok cu versiunea curenta a articolului, s-ar putea sa fiu eu biased, insa continua sa mi se para anormal sa nu faci precizarea ca limba moldoveana are toate trasaturile unui regionalism (bagaj de baza comun, influente fortate, etc). Sigur, ca o opinie a multor lingvişti, nu ca un fapt recunoscut oficial, dar sa fie precizat. --(Gutza) 13:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) (P.S. scuze pentru lipsa diacriticelor, scriu de la birou pe fuga)

P.P.S. Danutz, versiunea de aici nu este chiar identica cu cea in romana. Uite ce lipseste: "Majoritatea lingviştilor specializaţi pe limba română, cât şi marea majoritate a locuitorilor republicii Moldova care vorbesc limba română ca limbă maternă susţin că limba moldovenească este pur şi simplu limba română redenumită după criterii politice." Va dau cuvantul de onoare ca abia in urma observatiei lui Danutz am verificat cum arata articolul de pe ro.wiki, habar n-aveam ca sunt atat de similare, cu aceasta unica "omisiune convenabila".

• Hi Gutza, the reason for the removal of the statement about "majoritatea lingvistilor specializati pe limba romana, cat si marea majoritate a locuitorilor republi...." is due to the fact that no source was cited for it. When you make such a statement as "Most experts agree that...", you should expect it to be removed from a page unless you can back it up with good evidence.

• [1], which is a part of [2]. I won't go into this any more however, because you're on the verge of calling me untra-nationalistic, against all reasonable evidence, and it's really not worth it. --Gutza

• Please remind me, Gutza, how the US-LOC's country studies are written by "majoritatea lingvistilor specializati pe limba romana"... Saying that the majority of anyone believes anything is a very difficult statement to make in Wikipedia 24.251.198.156 18:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• I was basically replying to the following statement, which you can find a couple of paragraphs below: "you guys have not cited sources other than the Romanian academy (obviously an unreliable nationalistic source)". --Gutza, 17 May 2005

• Even in the highest science institution from Molodova the term Romanian language is used you can check this here [3]--Cosco

Articolul nu este coerent fără fraza respectivă. Asta m-a şi făcut să sesizez problema în prima fază, iar pe urmă am realizat că formatul curent al articolului combate o opinie care de fapt nu este prezentată (de unde comentariul meu cum că articolul este NPOV). N-am să continui discuţia fiindcă deja am transmis mesajul pe care vroiam să-l transmit; aici am vrut doar să clarific motivul pentru care am făcut comentariul iniţial. (Nu are rost să continuăm discuţia legată de lingvişti şamd fiindcă am ajunge într-un pat -- sens "şahistic" -- tipic conversaţiilor pe Internet.) -- Gutza

• Hi Gutza, we understand your opinion but I encourage you to look at it from an anationalist point of view, with no pre-established facts at all, and I think you will see it is very nationalistic. The statement that Moldovan is a language is not equivalent to saying it's separate from Romanian. I personally believe they are basically the same language. But to say that explicitly is POV, and you guys have not cited sources other than the Romanian academy (obviously an unreliable nationalistic source), and isolated sources in Moldova, yet you make broad sweeping statements about the majority of linguists. I am a linguist, but I see it this way: Romanian and Moldovan are both languages. They are both part of the same "system", and are basically the same language, but with different names. On the ro.Wikipedia, you claim it is Moldovan which is renamed for political motives. But I disagree - I would say that they are independent of one another, have different names, different spelling, their own grammar, their own vocabulary. These things just coincide with each other 99.9%. This doesn't give the right to name the entire language to you guys. There are obviously more neutral names for the language/duality of systems which I have seen proposed before, but they are always struck down - by a ROmanian who insists that the only reasonable language name is Romanian and will argue about it for centuries. The key fact is that there are 1/28 of the people who call it one thing, and 27/28 who call it another. Like it or not this is not ignorable. Romanian argues that Moldovan are insignificant numbers, but when you think of it it is not true. What percent of Europe lives in Romania? If you have 10000 people in a stadium, and 1/28 of them die, that's still a lot of dead people.

[edit] The Moldovan section of Wikipedia must be deleted

It is not normal to create a special Wikipedia section for the Moldovan language. There is no Australian English, nor American English or British English sections as all these - even though they have slight differences - are the same language: English. The only difference between Romanian and Moldovan is their name. All the rest is identical: grammar, vocabulary, alphabet, everything. In Moldova we use as reference Romanian language dictionaries edited in Romania. What i have learnt at lyceum ("Mircea Eliade" Lyceum) in Chisinau was Romanian language. The Moldovan language does not exist. We cannot consider the bad spoken Romanian language in combination with Russian slang words as the Moldovan language. All the documents in Moldovan Government are written in Romanian and in Russian (Russian is not a state language; at the moment when Russian was introduced as a state language, a sharp protest on the streets of Chisinau has begun so that in less than two weeks the decision was annulled). Romanian is used with the Romanian alphabet, and not the Cyrillic one. The Cyrillic alphabet was never specific to Romanian language, and even to the Romanian language in Moldova. After the fall of the USSR, Moldova has decided to return to the historically correct Romanian alphabet (the alphabet of Latin origins) and since there was never in discussion even the possibility of returning to the Cyrillic alphabet. It was introduced only to serve as a means of effacing the Romanian culture and traditions in Moldova. It was introduced only in the try to demonstrate that Moldovans and Romanians have developed isolated from each other. Romanian written with Cyrillic is an abnormality. All content related to Moldova should be included in the Romanian section of Wikipedia, that is ro.wikipedia.org. In my opinion mo.wikipedia.org should be deleted. At most a subsection of Romanian Wikipedia should be opened for the case when someone wants to insert content in Romanian written with Cyrillic alphabet (taking into account the works edited during the Moldovan SSR, after the Second World War till the Moldovan declaration of Independence and Sovereignty).

landroni 12 Juin 2005 14.36 CET. Toulouse, France

[edit] тебе

[edit] Blocare

Dacă nu vă liniştiţi cu modificările şi reverturile articolul va fi din nou blocat! Am fost rugat să îl deblochez şi am făcut-o pentru a putea fi acces la articole datorită faptului că - cel puţin pentru moment - nu sunt administratori. -Romihaitza 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I locked this article in the first place? Take a look at the history. It has been blanked, vandalised, moved, and dozens of other things. I didn't lock it to enforce my POV, as has been accused. --Node ue 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eu am corectat erorile din textul lui si am scos fraza cu "limba nevinovata" (chiar asa ceva intr-o enciclopedie?!) si el face revert. Inca de exemplu: "Молдовеняскэ ера скрисэ ын Молдова ын алфабетул кирилик, яр ла ынчепутул анилор 1990, кынд Академией де Штиинце а Молдовей а адоптат алфабетул латин." e gresit! "Mold. era scrsa in alfabetul chirilic, iar la inceput anilor 1990, cand ... a adoptat alfabetul chirilic" ??? El asta si doreste, sa blocheze pagina, sunt sigur. --Pavel 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Singura mea obiecţie la articolul actual ar fi că la "Молдовеняскэ ера скрисэ ын Молдова ын алфабетул кирилик, яр ла ынчепутул анилор 1990, кынд Академией де Штиинце а Молдовей а адоптат алфабетул латин." ar trebui adăugată ceva istorie pre-1945. --Romihaitza 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Domnule, si dvs. nu observati ca fraza nici un are sens ? --Pavel 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why that article is in English? Michał

m-am născut şi trăiesc în Rep Moldova. să vă spun ceva:

[edit] Majoritatea locuitorilor Rep Moldova sunt Români basarabeni, vorbitori uzuali ai graiului moldovenesc a limbii române cu grad de rusificare diferit, mai mare în mediul urban şi mai mic în rural.

[edit] Suntem Români şi punctum.