Dear JAC members,
What is actually going on here?
The way I see it, we made a unanimous decision in the JAC to include three
identifiers for "Norwegian", "Norwegian Bokmål", and "Norwegian Nynorsk"
respectively. There has been no formal proposal to re-address the question;
however, an informal suggestion was raised. Following that suggestion there
has been some feed-back, and I would think that it is becomming clear that
there will be no consesus to re-address the issue on a formal level.
I can repeat arguments, I can gather even more support, but for what? I
don't need to argue in favour of something that has already been decided. Do
we want to re-address all the issues that were decided during the meeting?
Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
Rådet for teknisk terminologi
(Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology)
Postboks 41 Blindern
NO-0313 Oslo, Norway
(besøksadresse/visiting address: Forskningsveien 3 B)
tel: +47-23198040 faks: +47-23198041
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milicent K Wewerka [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 6:01 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Norwegian language (and related issues)
> I think the problem with the codes for Norwegian arises from the
> existence of three codes. If one is using codes "nob" and "nno," then
> what does "nor" represent?
> A colleague of mine pointed out that a similar situation exists in
> modern Greek with Demotic and Katharevusa usage. Will we have to deal
> with this situation also?
> When 639-2 was developed, the code "esk" for Eskimo was eliminated
> because the four added codes for Yupik, Greenlandic, Inuktitut, and
> Inupiaq covered all the Eskimo languages.
> If we have separate codes for the two forms of Mari or the two forms
> of Sorbian, what use would be made of the existing codes for Mari or
> Perhaps we should have a principle that the "collective" code is
> discontinued (withdrawn, deprecated, etc.) when all constituent
> elements are represented by other codes.
> Milicent Wewerka