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  May 2003

ISOJAC May 2003

Subject:

AW: New ISO 639 proposal: Lower Sorbian

From:

Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 13 May 2003 11:57:10 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (73 lines)

Dear colleagues,

I agree with the proposal insofar, as 
- Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian should definitely be included in ISO 639-2
- sufficient evidence shall be provided to back the inclusion of the two 'languages' into ISO 639-1.

I agree that "wen" should be retained in addition to Upper and Lower Sorbian. If we have deleted similar 'collectives' from ISO 639 in the past, I can sympathize with John Clews' argument:
"If "scr" (Serbo-Croatian) was reinstated in ISO 639-2, in my personal view that would solve many problems that Milicent describes. In any case, there will still be very many bibliographic records washing around with "scr" (Serbo-Croatian) from when they were allocated in the past, by librarians all over the world. My own feeling is that in retrospect, deprecating "scr" (Serbo-Croatian) in ISO 639-2 raised more problems than it solved."
In the case of reinstating a code element and the respective language symbol(s) there should not be any problem, since the symbol had been blocked in the meantime and a reinstatement would not cause much confusion. However, I see more and more the need for NOTES to such entries.

Best regards
Christian



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Im Auftrag
von Håvard Hjulstad
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Mai 2003 15:57
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: New ISO 639 proposal: Lower Sorbian


The following proposal has been submitted:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:02:12 -0400
From: WWW generic account <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New ISO 639-2 code

This data was submitted on: Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 11:02:12

lang_in_eng = Lower Sorbian
lang_in_fre =
>>  <comment HHj> Other sources give bas-sorabe.
ref_where_found_1 =
lang_in_vern = Dolnoserbšćina
>>  <comment HHj> Other sources give delnjoserbski. The corrupted letters
"šć" shall be "s-caron + c-acute".
ref_where_found_2 =
trans_lit =
evidence = Sorbian Institute (Bautzen, Germany) > 200
Institute for Sorbian Studies (University of Leipzig, Germany) > 200
Weekly newspaper
addinfo = ca. 20,000 speakers, official language in parts of Brandenburg
(Germany), taught and
spoken at some schools
request_addition = ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2
2_code_suggestion = ds
3_code_suggestion = dsb
submit_name = Eduard Werner
submit_email = [log in to unmask]
submit_status = Academic teacher, prof. for Sorbian Studies at the Leipzig
university
---------- END Forwarded message ----------

The item has been on the table of JAC previously. At the meeting in
Washington 2000-02 both Sorbian languages were proposed; both were rejected
both for the alpha-2 and the alpha-3 code.

Currently "Sorbian languages" (wen) is encoded in 639-2. As far as I know
"Sorbian languages" = "Upper Sorbian" + "Lower Sorbian".

Note that both alpha-2 and alpha-3 identifiers are proposed. Both the
proposed identifiers are available. Ethnologue uses "WEE" for Lower Sorbian
(which is also available in 639-2).

I should think that there is not doubt that there is a need for identifiers
for both Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian. If that should be the outcome, I
would like to retain "wen = Sorbian languages" for the possible future
"639-5".

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