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  April 2003

ISOJAC April 2003

Subject:

Re: Boundaries are in the eye of the beholder

From:

Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:56:09 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (157 lines)

I agree 100 % with you, John (see his message below). What this is about is
NOT the concrete examples (Moldanian vs Romanian, Valencian vs Catalan,
Serbo-Croatian vs Serbian vs Croatian vs Bosnian, English vs English, etc.).
What we need to discuss is the rules and the criteria. I am sorry that very
few JAC members have "dared" throw themselves into the discussion. I tried
to trigger a discussion, but it is obviously very difficult to discuss
principles without getting too focussed on details of the examples.

We have the concepts of "indiviual language", "language group", "language
variant", etc. We have a number of criteria by which to assess what we are
dealing with in each individual case, but we constantly have the same kinds
of problems.

Some of the criteria are:

- Purely linguistic on the level of phonology and morphology. These are
normally fairly straight-forward to deal with. It would be possible to
"measure" phonological and morphological differences.

- Writing system, including orthographic principles. A high level of
orthographic stability makes it simpler to "count languages". Unfortunately
many orthographies are quite unstable and/or allow for considerable
variation.

- Vocabulary. In some cases neighbouring and closely related
languages/variants have had different cultural influences that may weigh
when we are "measuring" the difference.

- Legal or de-facto regulation. Many languages have some sort of legal
"protection", which also needs to be considered.

- Cultural split or unity. I think this is an important factor, but it is
quite difficult to deal with.

I am sure that we cannot come up with a formula that can be used objectively
to determine whether a "speak" (or a "write") is an "individual language".
But we need to put some effort into the question. May be some of our
"individual languages" would end up having "meta-names" as their primary
names, like "Romanian+Moldavian", "Catalan+Valencian+Balear", etc. Both
Ethnologue and Linguasphere have a number of such cases. These "meta-names"
would have to be a separate category, and "real" names would be included in
addition. I am certain that the current list of
identifier+English-name+French-name+indigenous-name needs to be changed.

There are many ways forward. And there are many decisions to be made. Among
them are: (1) How can we improve our criteria for assessing where the
"individual language" boundaries go? (2) Which elements of additional
information are needed to enhance our tables? (Don't think "table"; it is
going to be a database and/or a complex XML structure anyway.)

Håvard

-------------------------
Håvard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
Chairman ISO/TC37 (Terminology and other language resources)
Convener of ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1 (Language coding)
Acting chairman of ISO 639 RA-JAC
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  Ås, Norway
  tel: +47 64963684
  fax: +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 John Clews
Sent: 1. april 2003 23:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Boundaries are in the eye of the beholder


Boundaries are in the eye of the beholder

Hi all

In message  <[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] writes [Re: A question about a language]:

> John Clews:
>
> > The official language of Moldova is now of course Romanian, in Latin
> > script, and I imagine that there may be similar cross-border
> > initiatives to allow for standardization while recognizing potential
> > different local uses, as still exist between the Netherlands and
> > Belgium for standardizing the use of Dutch.

I stand by that description, but it's not worth arguing over a lot:
it occurs to me that it's another of these "where's the boundary"
issues, which will never get satisfactorily resolved.

    Many people will say (not just Michael) that the two are
    essentially the same language ...

> To quote the Moldovan constitution, Article 13: Limba de stat a Republicii
> Moldova este limba moldoveneasca, functionind pe baza grafiei latine. (I
am
> sure there should be some diacritics here and there.)

... while others, to quote the above will also state that they are
    different.

Actually, the constitution only describes the Moldavian language and
doesn't say how Romanian differs (or doesn't differ) from Moldavian.

> I don't see that neither John Clews nor the JAC has any authority
> over the Moldovan constitution (or over the laws of any region).

Nor did I suggest that JPC or JAC should have any authority beyond
that :-)

This was just an example of a similar thing, which some view
differently.

Others are arguably
Scots and English
Valencian and Catalan,
Bosniak and Croatian, and arguably also
Nynorsk and Bokmal.

In relation to the last, certainly when I was in West Norway last
year in the heart of Nynorsk country, the kommune librarian
considered that Nynorsk was essentially the same as Bokmal, while the
Nynorsk enthusiast I met the next day was understandably incensed
when I told him that (and I have to agree with him). The three
Norwegian - Nynorsk - Bokmal codes don't make it any easier for those
who are less familiar with the languages concerned to deal with it,
and I note that the Library of Congress is only applying the code for
Norwegian, if I have my JAC history correct.

Again, I repeat that boundaries are in the eye of the beholder, and
it's almost inevitable that those most familiar with the "dominant"
one of a pair will tend to see mostly similarities, while those most
familiar with the least "dominant" one of the same pair will tend to
see differences as being more significant.

The above isn't a criticism of any approach, just a statement that
boundaries are difficult, and perhaps we should just acknowledge
that.

Best regards

John Clews

--
John Clews,
Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG
Tel:    +44 1423 888 432
mobile: +44 7766 711 395
Email:  [log in to unmask]
Web:    http://www.keytempo.com

Committee Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG20: Internationalization;
Committee Member of ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1: Language Codes

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