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  January 2002

ISOJAC January 2002

Subject:

Christian's email

From:

John Clews <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:42:50 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

Christian's email [originally quoted in Re: Walloon: resolution
needed] has raised some very useful points. Most importantly, he has
suggested that it is important to distinguish languages from
dialects.

NB: that has prompted me to identify 4 criteria (a) - (d) which
I think can be consistently applied both to existing codes, and
potential new codes, fairly simply.

In my view, any linguistic entity which meets _all_ of criteria (a) -
(d) (described below) should be accepted as a separate language, and
ideally allocated a code, while if less than all four are met, the
linguistic entity in question probably should not be accepted as a
separate language, or allocated a code.

If JAC members could look at the discussion below, and think of any
areas where there are cases where there are legitimate languages
which do not meet all of (a) - (d), I'd be grateful.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO JAC Voting Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Christian Galinski
> Sent: 18. januar 2002 00:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [JACVOTE] AW: [JACVOTE] AW: [JACVOTE] Ballot: Walloon
>
>
> May I reformulate my arguments:
>
> I did not approve inclusion in ISO 639-1 for the following reasons:
> If we include Walloon, we also have to include all kinds of variants for
> major languages, like
> enUS, enAU, enNZ, enUK etc.
> deAT, deDE, deCH, etc.
> not to mention Chinese, French, etc...
>
> On the other hand, we have cases, like Bosnian, Slowakian, etc. If
> I am wrong, please correct me.

I think you are wrong, so I am correcting you :-)

Let me explain why. I think that two things are being confused.
Hopefully the criteria proposed below will provide a means of
overcoming this.

Talking principally of written languages, and ignoring spoken
languages, helps solve this problem, and this is the approach taken
in both parts of ISO 639.

Using the proposed criteria, it is possible to distinguish

1. Separate languages, which have
   (a) an established orthography,
   (b) a separate usage,
   (c) a separate language name and
   (d) a body of works using that orthography over a significant
   period of time, against

2. Dialects of any of the above, which don't have all four  of
   Critera (a) - (d).


Taking those criteria, this works so that

GROUP 1

1. Bosnian, Slovak, Nynorsk, Bokmaal, and Walloon all fit criteria
   (a) - (d) while (a) - (d) do not apply to group 2 below.

GROUP 2

2.1 What you describe as enUS, enAU, enNZ, enUK etc., are all
    described as English by their users, and it is difficult to pick
    out even any language variants from a short sample. Even for
    English as used in the US, the major differences are only some of
    spelling (color/colour etc) and usage (carpark/parking lot) and
    there is no mutual unintelligibility.

    Similarly, what you describe as deAT, deDE, deCH, etc., are all
    described as German by their users, and it is difficult to pick
    out even any language variants from a short sample. Even for
    German as used in Switzerland, the major differences are only some
    of spelling (use of ESSZET/SHARP ESS or not) and usage
    (Kartoffel/Erdapfel, etc) and there is no mutual
    unintelligibility.

> not to mention Chinese, French, etc.

    For Chinese, users of Hakka Chinese, Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese
    Chinese etc. all think of themselves as writing Chinese, and as
    Chinese people. NB: it is normal practice in the People's
    republic of China to subtitle TV historic dramas etc, so that the
    drama can be followed in whatever part of China viewers are
    watching. They are reading Chinese, even if they speak the same
    written words using different pronunication and different
    synonyms which predominate in their own (very large) areas.
    Criteria (a) - (d) do not apply here.

    French is a slightly different kettle of fish, but the same
    criteria apply. There are various languages of France, some of
    which have dialects. I would refer you to the JAC document N19
    (February 2002) which lists several different language families.
    It lists the main related _languages_ of metropolitan France as
    Franco-provencal, Occitan, and French, and also lists various
    dialects of each. Criteria (a) - (d) apply to each of
    Franco-provencal, Occitan, and French.

    However, criteria (a) - (d) do not apply to each of the dialects
    listed (see below), though they do apply to at least Walloon.

NB: There is some work to do here, in both ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2.

Current Occitan and current Franco-provencale needs separate codes,
as they currently share only one code. Older provencale is not used
currently, but has a large written repertoire, and should retain the
code it has. Occitan is much less influenced by Italian than is
Franco-provencale.

For current languages, there should be three codes for three
languages (Occitan, Franco-Provencale and French). Users may need
guidance on distinguishing Occitan and Franco-Provencale, which may
be done by providing links to sample texts in those languages.

Dialects

I have not yet looked into the language/dialect status of linguistic
entities related to Occitan (JAC N19 lists Gascon, Languedocian,
Provencal, Auvergnat-Limousin, Alpin Dauphinois) but the (a) - (d)
criteria should be useful in sorting them out.

Similarly, I have not yet looked into the language/dialect status of
linguistic entities related to French (JAC N19 lists as langues d'oil
the entities Franc-Comtois, Walloon, Picard, Norman,
Poetevin-Saintongeais), Bourguignon-Morvandiau, and Lorraine). Again,
the (a) - (d) criteria should be useful in sorting them out.

Walloon is listed in 1, not in 2, as it meets criteria (a) - (d).
The JAC's recent decision on Walloon also fits in with this.

But anyway using (a) to (d) as criteria should enable the JAC to
apply consistent benchmarks that also fit in with existing practice
of ISO 639, ISO 639-2 and the various registrations already made both
both RAs and the JAC.

Are there any problems with that? I'd be glad to see comments.

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/SC2/WG1: Language Codes

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