On 12/04/2002 01:21:33 PM John Clews wrote:
>> Ethnologue documentation uses "Oirat" both as a specific language
>> name, and as a wider group name too. * Ethnologue needs to have clearer
>> denotation.
>
>For clarification I mean this, taken from the Ethnologue:
>
>(a) OIRAT alternative for KALMYK-OIRAT [KGZ] (JPC uses: wider group)
>(b) OIRAT dialect of KALMYK-OIRAT [KGZ] (JPC uses: language)
>
>I think (in this exceptional case, not generally),
>Ethnologue is misusing the words dialect and language here.
It is using these terms consistently throughout. It's not the usage of
terms in the Ethnologue that you're questioning but rather the analysis: it
claims that there is one language alternately known as Kalmyk or as Oirat,
depending on what country you are in. It also states that there is a
dialect in China and Mongolia that does not get referred to by any other
distinct name -- it's just referred to as "Oirat" (as opposed to other
dialects that may be referred to using ethnic identities, such as Torgut).
This analysis is based on past research. The question, then, is whether
there is newer evidence that points to a different analysis.
>In no way can Kalmyk and Oirat - (b) above - have stayed as similar
>when languages much closer in time or place have diverged as their
>normal pattern.
I can't disagree that this situation looks like it would be a potential
candidate for language split, but I don't think we can simply conclude from
the time and locations that this must be the case since there may be other
factors involved. The time depths for the European diaspora (English,
French, Spanish, Portuguese) are comparable, and the distances are
generally greater, yet language splits have not occurred. Thus, other
factors *can* have a greater effect than time and distance. What has
occurred in the Kalmyk / Oirat case? I have no firsthand knowledge; I only
know what better-informed sources have said, and that is that language
split has not occurred.
If there is real evidence for a language split, I'm certainly willing to
listen, and would be glad to pass it on to the Ethnologue Editor. But I
can't ask him to make a change on the basis that the time and distance lead
some to question whether these can still be one language. And herein lies
to issue for me. My concern is entirely one of process and, in particular,
the issues we'll face in creating ISO 639-3. Assuming the NWI proposal is
accepted (which seems likely), we're going to be using the Ethnologue as
the basis for the new standard. It will be essential for us to make it
umambigously clear what the relationship is between each item in ISO
639-1/-2 and entries in ISO 639-3. If we create a code element for "Kalmyk"
in ISO 639-2, then we are going to have to resolve how it relates to the
current Ethnologue entry KGZ. I cannot ask the Ethnologue Editor to split
the "Kalmyk-Oirat" entry into two unless there is reliable evidence
indicating that these are distinct languages. Therefore, I won't be able to
relate an ISO 639-2 entry for "Kalmyk" to an entry in part 3, and there
will be an interoperability problem. (And if I make a split in ISO 639-3
without having had evidence for the Ethnologue to justify a split, there
will still be an interoperability problem.) That is why I have been so
stubborn in saying that we should not proceed on the basis of a split until
there is real linguistic or sociolinguistic evidence justifying a split.
I'm not a voting members of the JAC, so I don't want to continue taking so
much bandwidth in this discussion. I'll just say that if you add a code
element for "Kalmyk" now, it is going to create an issue that will require
revisiting the matter in the very near future.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
|