LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


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  December 2002

ISOJAC December 2002

Subject:

Re: Oirat/Kalmyk

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:19:45 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

On 12/02/2002 06:01:47 AM John Clews wrote:

Sorry, I closed the previous message before I was done.


>> My contact in China, Ritva Lehonkoski, suggested that I contact Prof.
Juha
>> Janhunen if I needed more info. His response completely clears up the
>> issue: "Kalmyk" and "Oirat" are one and the same language, even though
>> these labels are sometimes used to refer to the western and easter
dialect
>> groups.
>
>Your use of the term "dialect groups" is what the JAC would normally
>mean by "language."

Not at all! There are various dialects of English spoken in the southern
US. I'd call that a group of dialects, but not a different language. My
usage was not at all intended to be what JAC would normally mean by a
language (unless I've been making some very wrong assumptions about the
JAC's views).



>The analogy is talking about the "Nordic language" and saying that
>Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are all just dialects or
>dialect groups of Nordic.
>
>Or similarly, talking about the "Turkic language" and saying that
>Turkish, Turkmen, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Altai, etc, etc, are all
>just dialects or dialect groups of Turkic.

Not at all. For instance, the former Ethnologue editor understand these
issues very well, and very clearly identifies Turkish et al as distinct
languages but also very clearly identifies Oirat / Kalmyk as one language.
Certainly the analogy does not apply to the input received from the
Ethnologue, or from Ritva Lehonkoski, and I have no reason to believe that
it applies to Juha's input either.



>In an academic sense, it's vaguely true, in that the language group
>is taken as the important unit. However, from an everyday practical
>point of view it won't wash, and it isn't the way that languages have
>been dealt with in either part of ISO 639.

IMO this discussion has never been about language groups.



>> I suggest a slight modification of Havard's suggestion: the name(s) for
>> this code element be listed as "Oirat; Kalmyk", i.e. listing Oirat
first,
>> since that seems to be the best choice for the whole (Oirat being the
>> source and Kalmyk representing the splinter group).
>
>No: this is an even worse solution. Kalmykia, being a republic in the
>Russian Federation, is hardly likely to be keen on being regarded as
>a "splinter group" using your terms.

Fine, then: make it "Kalmyk; Oirat".



>> The fact is that the names Oirat and Kalmyk (Kalmuck) have often been
>> used interchangeably...

>This is from the viewpoint of Mongolic studies. From that viewpoint,
>Kalmyk might appear as a "splinter group" as you put it, but it's not
>realistic as a language description...

That's not the key point to be commenting on. Rather, it's this:


>> so the dialects spoken by the various Oirat groups, including
>> those spoken by the Volga Kalmucks, are still mutually intelligible.
>> Linguistically, it is a question of a single language, which is best
>> termed Oirat.

This certainly seems to be an unambiguous statement.


>I'd forgotten that Kalmykia was in the Volga region. This makes it
>even more separate from the Oirat languages/dialects in China.

Like UK English and Australian English are distinct languages? Geographic
distance can lead to language split, but it does not have to. It is not a
sufficient criterion. It seems like an invalid conclusion is being drawn.



>The Mongolic languages (Mongolian, Buryat, Kalmyk and the Oirat
>languages, and also Mogholi in the Herat area of Afghanistan) by
>comparison, do not have quite this continuous spread, and this
>discontinuity is most highly marked in the case of Kalmyk, in the
>Volga area of European Russia.

Once again, what information is there indicating a discontinuity? I don't
doubt the possibility, but I've only seen indicators that there is no
significant continuity. If you have first hand experience or other sources
giving evidence for a discontinuity in the specific case of Kalmyk and
Oirat, please give us the details.



>> The reasons why the language of the Volga Kalmucks is often treated as a
>> separate "Kalmyk" (Kalmuck) language are mainly political. The Volga
>> Kalmucks have been living for some time under Russian rule, and since
>> the early 20th century they have a literary language based on the
>> Russian Cyrillic alphabet. The other Oirat groups, by contrast, have
>> used the so-called Oirat script, a variety of the Mongol script created
>> in 1648. The Oirat script was also earlier used by the Volga Kalmucks,
>> but it is now obsolete among them. It is also being replaced by the
>> regular Mongol script among the Oirats of China.
>
>Kalmyk has been separated from "other" Oirat languages for hundreds
>of years (since around 1628), with no significant contact between the
>disparate groups in that period, and has used a different script for
>most of the time it has been written.

If that's the case, why did Juha suggest that usage of a different script
dates to the early 20th century?



>There may be a case (in due course) for having separate ISO 639-2
>codes for Kalmyk (and if anyone asks for it later - Oirat). There may
>well be a case for the Ethnologue editors to ask themsleves the same
>question.

The Ethnologue editor is *always* asking such questions. She/he only acts,
however, when documentation has been provided.



>However, for now, let's just code Kalmyk. That's all the original
>requester requested.

Simply doing just what the original requester asked for can lead to
problems. I'll elaborate in another message.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485

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