LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  February 2000

ISOJAC February 2000

Subject:

AW: (iso639.122) AW: Sign language codes

From:

Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:09:43 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (179 lines)

This is great!
It is along the lines, which I was thinking of and it proves that we need
not re-invent the wheel.

rgds
Christian
p.s.
(1) There are/will be available
- language symbols (for spoken or written language - problem: how to cope
with script variants or change of the writing system? -->script code [can
all cases be covered?])
- country symbols (to 'qualify' language variants - problem: how detailed
can/shall dialects be covered? -->sub-national entities [can all cases be
covered?])
- script code (to 'qualify' differences of writing system for same language)
- sign language symbol (--> sgn - question: are there more problems IN
REALITY, if "sgn" is combined with language symbols or if "sgn" is combined
with country/region symbols?)

In this connection it is important to decide IN PRACTICE whether to put
"sgn" into the list of language symbols or into the list of script symbols
or ???
(2) ISO 639-1/RA - assisted by the JAC - has to find out, whether an alpha-2
symbol for sign language is needed or not.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Im Auftrag
von Rebecca S. Guenther
Gesendet am: Montag, 07. Februar 2000 13:41
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: (iso639.122) AW: Sign language codes

The Library of Congress considered the introduction of a code for sign
languages into the MARC Code List for Languages several years ago. This
is the language code list upon which ISO 639-2 is based. We worked
closely with experts from Galludet University in determining which types
of sign languages to represent with separate codes. In the end, the
decision was to define one code (sgn) for sign languages, because defining
separate ones for different country's signed languages would result in
hundreds of additional language codes. Because the purpose of this
language code list is for bibliographic control, and it is often used in
electronic catalog records using standard cataloging rules, the Library of
Congress provided a document with guidelines for indicating sign
languages:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/signlang.html

The above document refers to specific fields in the MARC record used to
include language information about a resource. Although these may not be
useful for those not using MARC, the point is that the particular type of
sign language may be indicated in the record in addition to using the sgn
code.

Note that in the MARC Code List for Languages, references are included. We
have included references from particular types of sign languages to the
general sign language code . So far we have only included those for which
we have received material, but the list of individual sign languages for
which sgn is used as a collective code could certainly grow.
See:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/languages/

Note that the reason "sgn" was not included in ISO 639-2 is that the ISO
list was essentially frozen after the 1993 Berlin meeting of the ISO 639-2
Joint Working Group (except for resolution of some items from the
balloting process at various stages). The sgn code was approved for use in
MARC in late 1995.

Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Michael Everson wrote:

> Ar 13:27 +0000 2000-02-06, scríobh Christian Galinski:
> >Dear All,
> >as there is nothing like a unified sign language, but many national sign
> >languages (plus an international one - possibly with variations), I would
> >like to repeat an earlier suggestion to formally handle this question
under
> >'script code'.
>
> As editor of ISO 15924 (Codes for the representation of the names of
> scripts) I have no idea why Christian thinks this makes sense. I think he
> is mistaken about what Sign Languages are.
>
> It is true that Sign Languages tend to be national and regional in nature.
> This is related to questions of educational systems and mobility.
> Interestingly, there are a few Sign Languages which can be shown to be
> "etymologically" related. Irish Sign Language and American Sign Language,
> for instance have a few features in common with French Sign Language, and
> this can be traced to the influence of French clergymen who set up Deaf
> schools.
>
> In general, however, even languages like these are not mutually
> intelligible without study. To my knowledge, there is no "international
> sign language", although many people outside of America who have studied
at
> Gallaudet University have learned American Sign Language.
>
> >In fact sign language(s) is/are often considered as language(s) of their
own
> >by applied linguists. Looking at their 'representation' by means of
> >handsigns etc. they are of course (a) semiotic system(s) like different
> >scripts.
>
> It is incorrect (or rather, outdated) to say that "Sign Languages are
often
> considered to be languages". This has been long since proven and all
> reputable linguists accept and understand that these are true languages
> with their own grammar and syntax.
>
> There _is_ another kind of Sign Language, which takes symbols from
> "natural" Sign Language and uses them according to the grammar and syntax
> of a spoken language. But here it must be understood that there is a
> difference between "French Sign Language" and "Signed French".
>
> >In case of the existence let us say of an English variant of sign
language
> >eg in the US one must think of a way of coding
> >name of language + country code + sign language symbol
> >which is quite parallel to the usage of the script code such as
> >name of language (eg Chinese) + name of country (eg Singapore) + script
> >variant (eg simplified characters or complex characters).
>
> I don't follow this logic at all. Please read in detail the request for
the
> code "sgn" from the Irish National Body and the Deaf Action Committee at
> http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/iso639/sign-language.html. You will
find
> there a scheme for unambiguously identifying sign languages by region and
> _also_ for identifying the signed variants of spoken languages. The
generic
> "sgn" is proposed as a new code to describe gestural languages. Country
> codes from ISO 3166-1 are used except where that is not precise enough, in
> which case country subdivision codes from ISO 3166-2 are used (cf. the
> situation for Canada, where sgn-US is used to identify American Sign
> Language, sgn-CA-NU to identify Eskimo Sign Language, sgn-CA-QC to
identify
> French Canadian Sign Language, and sgn-CA-NS to identify Nova Scotian Sign
> Language).
>
> Note sgn-VA Monastic Sign Language and sgn-US-SD Plains Sign Talk, which
> show that Sign Languages are not only used by the Deaf.
>
> Remember, ISO 639 exists to help people identify what language a book or
> web document is written in or what languages were spoken (or signed!) at a
> conference. Because there are as noted in the proposal document, there are
> numerous ways of writing or notating Sign Languages: SignWriting is
proving
> to be the most practical; HamNoSys and Stokoe are used by many academics.
> All of these are potential codes for ISO 15924, because these are _writing
> systems_, but the Sign Languages themselves are _languages_ and therefore
> need ISO 639 codes. We believe that the ISO 3166 extensions are most
> appropriate for differentiating the different Sign Languages because there
> are (at least) as many Deaf Sign Languages as there are countries (plus
the
> signed versions of spoken languages) and a single generic code "sgn" is
> good economy.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
> 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
> Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
January 2021
November 2020
June 2020
May 2019
February 2019
September 2018
April 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
May 2016
April 2016
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager