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  November 2001

ISOJAC November 2001

Subject:

Re: Saami or Sami?

From:

Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:07:02 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

Dear all,

I don't have strong feelings about this issue. The spelling with "aa" is
based on the writing system for Northern Sami (which is the largest Sami
language) in Finland (avtually based on Finnish orthography). In Norway and
Sweden both the old and the new orthography uses "á" (a-acute). I have asked
a number of experts (obviously not all). There was a clear majority in
favour of "Sami" (no accent and no double a). The spelling "Saami" may be
confusing in Norway (due to the traditional "aa" = "å"), and is little known
in Sweden. However, it is clearly well known in Finland.

I asked around in connection with a paper I wrote in 1998. At that time I
was recommended to stick to "Sami".

I shall be happy to conduct a survey among experts and institutions in
Finland, Sweden and Norway. This is definitely NOT an issue for the JAC to
discuss without further expert input.

Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad

-------------------------
Håvard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  Ås, Norway
  tel: +47-64944233  &  +47-64963684
  mob: +47-90145563
  http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
-------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of John Clews
Sent: 28. november 2001 10:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Saami or Sami?


I will comment later on the detail of the proposal for Saami
languages recently submitted by Haavard and Sten.

In the meantime, could JAC members also comment on the following?

In my view all additions to, and revisions of, any part of ISO 639
should use the term Saami for the English name. The justification
(rather strong) is below.

Both "the Norwegian Saami Language Council as well as the Finnish
Saami Language Council have decided to use the name Saami as the
English term for the former Lappish, thus leaving out Sami" (both
with and without an acute accent on the letter a). "It is expected
that the Swedish Language Council will follow these decisions. This
means that Saami is the form which ought to be used officially." [1]

Saami is also the term used by Isayev when writing about Saami in
Russia. [2]

References:

[1] Ringstam, Hans (Sweden) - Standardization in multilingual areas:
the Saami languages in Norden. - New York: United Nations, 2000.
(Working paper - United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical
Names Twentieth Session, New York, 17-28 January 2000, no.66)

[2] M.I. Isayev - National languages of the USSR: problems and
solutions. - Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977.

Best regards

John Clews

--
John Clews,
Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG
Email: [log in to unmask]
tel: +44 1423 888 432;

Committee Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG20: Internationalization;
Committee Member of ISO/TC37: Terminology

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