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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  April 2000

ISOJAC April 2000

Subject:

Dialects-- Criteria

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:30:15 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (94 lines)

Sten's message brings up a very important point: that the JAC needs to
carefully consider how it will deal with dialects.  Undoubtedly we will
need to deal with many of these in the future (in fact, one other
discussed at our meeting was Alsatian). We noted in the meeting that it
was difficult to have a hard and fast rule about when a dialect is a
language, and that each would need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis.  Before we commence with voting on Low German/Saxon we need to
discuss this.

There are two issues to consider.

1)  We need to establish some guidelines to help us decide what should be
defined as a language. Millie Wewerka has kindly submitted some below.

2) If the dialect in question does not satisfy the criteria, how shall we
deal with it?

I will separate these two issues into two messages.

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

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. (Would we want to say that more than
half of these need to be true?)

Please comment.

Rebecca


On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Hedberg Sten wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> It is with increasing respect and wonder that I have followed the last days'
> discussion of how to resolve the matter of the code for Plattdeutsch, a very
> realistic and sound proposal. I understand we will get material for a formal
> vote from Rebecca next week.
>
> We have not decided, within 639-2, on how to handle dialects in a more
> general way, although there are cases when a dialect is recognized in its
> own right (criterion 1.2). Furthermore, the only rule for the code is to
> base it on vernacular forms (crit. 2). Thus, I am surprised to see
> connections to various German- or Saxon-based local names for something that
> must be regarded as dialects brought forward to support "ndd" or similar
> codes. My second surprise is to see the amount of comparative linguistics
> brought forward.
>
> John's reminder of UKMarc "gml" for Low German was very comforting, as was
> his parallels with ger - gmh - goh - ...in 639-2B.
> As I see it, "gml" is, for the reasons John brings up, the only real
> alternative to the fundamental vernacular "pld" from Rebecca. To improve
> "gml", it might be argued to take away the "m", meaning "Middle" in "gmh",
> and establish the code "gel" meaning "German, Low" regardless of time. But
> the examples given in the proposal were, if I remember correctly, mainly
> fetched from early material (but, admittedly, not from medieval but from
> 16th and 17th centuries).
>
> Will the vote be more on what code than on the necessity to have a code? It
> seems so. Preferrably, we would need to get a final suggestion of two codes
> to choose between. Any more alternatives would be a nuisance to assess.
>
> Sten
> *********************************
> Sten Hedberg
> Expert on cataloguing and standardisation
> Uppsala University Library
> POBox 510, S-751 20 UPPSALA Sweden
> Voice +46-(0)18 471 3970
> Fax  +46-(0)18 471 3941
>

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