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  April 2000

ISOJAC April 2000

Subject:

Issues concerning Low German

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:34:22 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (101 lines)

In reviewing the information gathered so far, there are the following
issues concerning the definition of Low German as a language in ISO 639.
Since the request was only to define in ISO 639-2 that is what we are
considering.

1. Low German as dialect or as separate language

If we consider Low German against the proposed list of criteria to
establish a separate language code for a dialect, we could say:
definitely yes to 1, 5, and 7. For 2, the name is somewhat distinctive,
although the term is used for the dialects of Germany as well as the wider
grouping of West Germanic languages that includes Dutch and English. The
latter usage is in contrast with the High German dialects. We have no
information on standardization or educational status. It does seem to
have a tradition of literary usage, and there is a radio station in
Germany that broadcasts in Low German.

It seems to satisfy at least 4 of the criteria.

The criteria distributed yesterday:

These are suggestions for evaluating the merit of including a
separate language code for a dialect.

1) Does the required number of documents exist? (This is, of
course, mandatory)

2) Does the dialect have a distinctive name? A name such as
Parisian French isn't particularly distinctive, being based on
the combination of a place name with the name of the language.

3) Does the dialect have a degree of standardization, such as a
consistent orthography?

4) Is the dialect taught separately in schools?

5) Is there significant variation from the standard language?

6) Is the dialect sometimes considered a separate language?

7) Is there a tradition of literary usage or is the dialect used
in media such as radio, motion pictures, television?

The more "yes" answers that occur for a dialect, the more likely
it is that a separate code would be useful.

(I do realize that Sten made some thoughtful comments about these
yesterday that I am thinking about.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What code to assign.
According to working principles in:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/iso639jac_n3r.html:

 * An effort is made to derive a language code from a language's name for
itself, when possible. For historical reasons, some codes may be based on
the name of a language in English.

 * New language codes shall be based on the vernacular form of name unless
   - another language code is requested by the country or countries using
     the language or the sponsor submitting the request;
   - if the vernacular cannot be determined; or
   - if a suitable code is not available

In this case, there is some evidence that Low Saxon and Low German are the
same language. If these are the same, our sources at the Library of
Congress primarily use Low German; we also don't feel certain that they
are the same. In any case, it is not clear what the vernacular name of Low
Saxon is (Neddersassisch or Nedersaksisch in Ethnologue?). The vernacular
for Low German seems to be Plattduutsch (umlauts over each "u") with
varying other spellings in other places (e.g. Mennonite German is
Plautdietsch; also saw Plattduetsche). It seems also to be spoken in other
places, such as the U.S., Latin America, Canada, Russia, etc.

The submitter of the request did not represent the country using the
language. He did suggest a code that had already been used, but said they
could change to whatever we chose.

The choices seem to be:
  - pld (based on Plattduutsch or some other variant)
  - sak (based on Saksysch? but we aren't sure that these are the same
and the request was for Low German)
  - nds (based on Nedersksisch or other variant; same comment as above)
  - gml (based on German, Low; proposed code by submitter)

I think we should use a vernacular form; I'm not sure that we have one for
"Low Saxon". To me it is still questionable whether Low German or Low
Saxon are the same (Ethnologie considers them separate). My proposal is to
conduct the vote to include the following entry (using the technique of
giving a variant following a semicolon):

  pld Low German; German, Low
  pld German, Low; Low German

Please comment. I would like to send out the vote by next week. I do hope
that all of you on the JAC who have not participated in this discussion
will vote.

Rebecca

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