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: Clarification re Oirat/Kalmyk

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:36:27 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

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

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