Hi Gerard,
Certainly there are dialectal differences between Moldova and
Transnistria, but these are very minor and none of them are present in
the written language, which is essentially based (with a handful of
exceptions) on the speech of Wallachia in Romania rather than the
speech of Chisinau or Tiraspol (in Moldova and Transnistria).
One of the only examples:
The initial diphthong in pîine, cîine, mîine (pâine, câine, mâine in
Romania's official orthography) are reduced to a monophthong in most
of Moldova. In Latin alphabet, this isn't usually reflected; if it is
it is considered incorrect, even in Moldova. However, in Cyrillic the
appropriate spelling is the regional one: пыне, кыне, мыне (pîne/pâne,
cîne/câne, mîne/mâne).
However, this is not different between Transnistria and (the rest of?)
Moldova, as I said, while there are certain regional words and minor
dialectal differences between Chisinau and Tiraspol, they are not
reflected in the written language so it is irrelevant.
Mark
2008/11/14 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> As it is, it will remain in this way unless the powers that be decide
> differently.
>> When you read about the arguments why the Moldovan language was deprecated,
> the argument was very much based on what an official Moldovan organisation
> did. The people in Transnistria are effectively not part of the remit of
> this official organisation and this makes it effectively another political
> decision, not that I have a problem with the result because here perfection
> is the enemy of the good.
>> The one question is, to what extend there is a difference between the
> Romanian as spoken in Moldova and spoken in Transnistria. If there is a wish
> to indicate such a difference, there is no proper way to indicate areas like
> Transnistria because they are not part of the ISO-3166-1. Because of this
> wilfull ommission the RFC falls flat on its face.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:30, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>> > Because this is one of the most heavily fought battles that did not
>> > result in a situation that is acceptable to all.
>>>> Well, since "mo" is now deprecated, re-naming it "ro-Cyrl" can be done
>> without really taking any decision. It's essentially cosmetic.
>>>> > The issue is that the people behind the mo.wikipedia are not living
>> > anywhere near the areas involved and they are not native speakers/
>> > writers either. It would have been good when this thing had been
>> > just deleted because the pain would have worn off. However, the
>> > decision was that when a native speaker comes along, it can be
>> > restarted...
>>>> I don't understand. Is it to be deleted? Is it to be re-named? If not
>> the former, then surely the latter.
>>>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>>> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
