Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 8

message: In this sentence form the article:
The main debate surrounding the status of Moldovan is its status in relation to Romanian, specifically: is it a dialect of Romanian (or vice-versa), a separate language, or are the two in fact different names for the same thing?
I wonder if the 'or vice-versa' bit is serious or someone just being contrary?  Has any linguist actually seriously suggested that Romanian is a dialect of Romanian?  If so could we get the details of the suggestion and the logic behind it?  If not I think we should remove the () all together. Dalf | Talk 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you mean, have they suggested that Romanian is a dialect of Moldovan?? Of course no linguist has suggested this. You must've skipped the previous paragraph, where it said it's NOT A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. So none of the above are suggestions of linguists, because linguistics as a science rejects the notion that idiolects can be grouped definitively and meaningfully (rather than arbitrarily) into separate languages. --Node 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was more focused on what is the point of the parenthetical or vice-versa from an encyclopedic point of view.  Surely the philosophy of what constitutes a dialect belongs in the dialect article.  Though if it belongs here it deserves more explanation, in short the way it is inserted it strikes me as a sort of tong in cheek comment meant to make some sort of point that the author who put it there thinks the whole paragraph (indeed the whole discussion is silly).  If that is the case then we should Either remove it or address it in a more encyclopedic way. Dalf | Talk 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "or vice-versa" 

message: I thought it was agreed that this article should be modified in small steps while allowing others to express their agreement or opposition. Node, you clearly missed that (rather important) bit. My comments to your edits:
*Transnitria is not a country. As such it cannot have an official language.
::: Whether or not Transnistria is a country is disputed.
*When you say there are "certain experts" who consider that Moldovan and Romanian are nearly identical, it sounds like there are just a handful of people saying that. There is actually no sane linguist who claims the two languages are more than slightly different.
:::What it sounds like is irrelevant. What matters is the truth.
*Saying "nearly identical" implies that there is a considerable difference. The official forms, however, differ just in a minor spelling difference. You cannot bring that as an argument for saying "nearly". The previos phrasing was a lot better.
:::How does it imply that? It doesn't say "there is a considerable difference". If it wanted to imply that, it would say they were "similar" or "closely related". And you're wrong, they differ in more than a minor spelling difference, as explained above.
*The sentence about the differences in the spoken languages was good as it was, I don't see why you removed it. Besides, it supported your position...
:::I explained that.
*Nobody calls the speech in Moldova region of Romania "limba moldovenească". Linguists call it just "grai" (speech, subdivision of a dialect): "graiul moldovean". Usual people say "moldoveneşte" (adverb: in the Moldavian way), or "cu accent moldovenesc" (with Moldavian accent).
:::What about Ureche's Chronicles where he refers to a Moldovan language??
*The link to Vasile Stati's interview is useful, it should be reinserted. --AdiJapan 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. If a quote from somebody goes against the views they have expressed elsewhere, it should be considered unreliable unless there's corroboration from independent sources. --Node 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). -- Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small steps

message: That dude spokes only insanity things. I don't know if have seen this but the latest one is "Bucharestian is a language". Hey dude you're too stressed right now and you don't judge too well. "Bucharestian is a language" this is one of the greatest lie, stupid thing spoken by him. I have never found before such stupidity and now I hear this. Shall I ask the mayor of Bucharest to change the name of the language for this kid? Is this kid serious or what? 
Half of his contribution are non-sense (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). The other is revert war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30151230&oldid=30090214). I see no contribution of him to this article. What he makes is called trolling.
 Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonaparte, let me ask you this, what is the definition of a language? It is a system of lexemes and the rules by which they are manipulated. Does "Bucharestian" meet this definition? YES!!! Is it a separate language from Romanian? That isn't a linguistic consideration, and can only be based on somebody's personal opinion. But it does fit the definition of what is a language. --Node 16:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). -- Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've given sources. You need to discredit my sources. If you want, go ahead and tell me why the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article language is wrong. Otherwise, stop harassing me and start discussing the article. --Node 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: such a stupidity I've never heard in my life: '''"Bucharestian is a language"'''

message: Look at this example posted by MARK WILLIAMSON aka noddde uee: 
"Bucharestian is a language" 
Dude you're dump to say such things but I need references. Now I need references. -- Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to censor you. I'm just removing offensive statements against me in line with the official Wikipedia policy Remove Personal Attacks. --Node 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You just did, but you're afraid that if you'll do in the future...-- Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). I need references PLEASE. -- Bonaparte  talk & contribs 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As an administrator, I endorse Node's action in removing a personal attack. --Gareth Hughes 16:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that's something new. An administrator endorsing that personal attacks are to be removed? Now I've seen it all! --Anittas 16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My sentence was short and endorsed one thing only. Stop this slanging match. --Gareth Hughes 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah folks, calm down. Assume good faith sometimes. I think both Bonaparte and Node have feelings on this issue that are too strong. Both Bonaparte and Node are here practically everyday. Alexander 007 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: credibility