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  March 2003

ISOJAC March 2003

Subject:

Re: AW: A question about a language (fwd)

From:

Havard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:33:44 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

This question is by no means simple; and I don't have the answer!

People's languages and the designations for those languages form important
parts of their identity. A linguist could have told us that the Norwegian
language(s) is "just" a dialect of the "Nordic language", and the identifier
could just be "noc-NO" or something (and Danish "noc-DK", etc). He would
have been fairly correct from a "purely linguistic" point of view. But very
few people in this corner of the world would buy it. Our linguist also
wouldn't be very incorrect if his analysis was that Norwegian and Danish are
just dialectal variants of Swedish (since Swedish has more speakers than the
other two). Let us designate them "sv-NO" and "sv-DK". But I don't think
anyone here would buy that perfectly plausible linguistic statement.

May be if there had been one "generic" designation for
Catalan+Valencian+Balearic it could have worked. But "Cavaba" doesn't exist,
neither as designation for a geographical area nor for a linguistic unit.

There is no clear "rules" for language borders. Some "adjacent" languages
are close, others are further apart. No-one should start localizing into a
language just because there exists an ISO 639 identifier.

I see two important points: (1) We need clear and well structured
meta-information connected to each item in all code tables. The description
of this will need to go into the new "part 4" that I have circulated a first
proposal for. (2) Not all applications need (or want) the same level of
granularity. The fact that an identifier exists for some (sub)unit doesn't
mean that it is practical for any application to use it.

As to Valencian: We cannot include Valencian as an "alternate name" for
Catalan. We COULD possibly have encoded "Cavaba" as a linguistic unit and
given Catalan and Valencian and Balearic as "alternate names". But that
isn't the case. I think we need to hold any decision for the time being.
Hopefully we will find a good place in a new description format for this
kind of information.

As to English or all the Englishes: It is just a "random" occurrence that
they are all called English. We could just as well had five or fifty
"English languages". And I am sure that speakers of "Amlish" and "Uklish"
alike would find it a poor solution to have "eng"/"en" as identifier. But
the case for Valencian isn't like the English case; it is more like oposite.
As far as I know (I may be wrong!) Moldavian and Romanian are even closer
from a linguistic point of view. These two languages are two languages
primarily because the two governments have decided that they are. (I know of
course the historical differences in writing system.)

I wish I had a clear and stubborn opinion about this ...

Havard

-------------------------
Havard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  As, Norway
  tel: +47 64963684  &  +47 64944233
  mob: +47 90145563
  http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
-------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Peter Constable
Sent: 31. mars 2003 17:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: AW: A question about a language (fwd)


Milicent Wewerka wrote on 03/17/2003 06:56:42 AM:

> Regarding Michael's message (below), I think this is an important point.
>  I don't think that the view of the speakers of the language is the only
> issue... The language codes
> are not some abstract intellectual exercise; they are applied in the
> real world.

I agree. If we add 2- or 3-letter IDs for things that really are not
different, but are only referred to by different names, then we create
potential for problems in a number of areas:

- software vendors will get the impression that they need to support
distinct implementations for these things, when they do not (and, btw, when
they find out that they have expended resources unnecessesarily, they'll
get annoyed at ISO)

- larger content providers will face a conundrum in publishing: they have
content that is intended for the entire community, but they are forced to
decide whether to tag it as Catalan or as Valencian; they'll end up having
to duplicate the content and have two versions that are identical except
for the way tagged, and that will result in increased costs for their
operations

- some content will be inconsistently tagged: there will be content that
gets tagged one way and other content that gets tagged another way; authors
will be confused about which to use; users will similarly be confused, or
will miss out on some of the content they were looking for

- cataloguers will face a conundrum about how to catalog content that can
serve both sub-communities (the issue that Milicent pointed out)


If there were some social or political circumstances that meant there were
two very distinct cultural identities that meant that content targeted at
one community would generally not be suitable for the other, then *perhaps*
that might warrent two different language identifiers (though I wouldn't
make that a general rule). But just because one portion of the speaker
community refers to themselves as "Valencian", that alone is not a
sufficient basis for asserting a distinct language. (If the UK had vowed to
veto a UN resolution and Americans started asserting that they ate "freedom
muffins" rather than "English muffins", and similarly that they spoke
"American" rather than "English", that wouldn't provide a basis for adding
a new language identifier for "American".)



- 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