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
|