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  January 2005

ISOJAC January 2005

Subject:

Réf. : RE: Réf. : Re: Occitan and ISO 639-3 : French linguistics position

From:

Anila Angjeli <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:35:55 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

I was absent during the holiday period. Here are my reactions to Peter's
response to my proposal about Occitan and its dialects. Please find them
intégrated in Peter's text and preceded by ">>>".

May I send you all my best wishes for 2005 !

Anila Angjeli




Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>@loc.gov> le 17/12/2004 21:14:26

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

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


Pour : [log in to unmask]
cc :
Objet :     RE: Réf. : Re: Occitan and ISO 639-3 : French linguistics
       position


> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Anila
> Angjeli


> I'm proposing some "clean-up" actions regarding occitan...

I have had your message of Sept 21 tagged as needing attention, but never
found time to make it high enough priority. Your message today has prompted
me to act -- my apologies for putting this off.

Just a note: this relates to issue 4.10 in the "Issues to Resolve" document
(with many other open issues needing action by the JAC as soon as
possible).

The expert input from Patrick Sauzet is very valuable. In my role as editor
for ISO 639-3, I have no particular bias regarding whether or not to
include entries for Auvergnat, etc. In my role as SIL liaison, I have
submitted Patrick's input to the Ethnologue staff and await their comments.
As an individual member of the JAC, I find Patrick's comments reasonably
convincing, but inasmuch as I also sit in the liaison role I don't feel I
can make any decision regarding removal of the six contested entries in the
draft table for ISO 639-3 until I have heard back from Ethnologue staff.

Regarding the proposed change to names, I have no objection to changing the
name associated with "pro" to "Occitan, Old (to 1500)".  The proposed
change of name for "oci" is trickier. (Of course, the proposed change
presumes agreement on removing Auvergnat, etc. from the draft table for ISO
639-3, which as noted I cannot yet form an opinion on. My comments that
follow will assume this decision has been agreed upon, however.)

IMO, alternate names listed for a given entry should be alternate labels
for the same entity. But I don't think the suggestion here is that (e.g.)
"Auvergnat Occitan" and "Gascon Occitan" are the same thing. I think it
would be confusing and not a good precedent to list names of distinct
dialects as alternate language names. Thus, I would not support the
proposed name change in this case.

>>>As a matter of fact the alternate labels for the same entitiy "Auvergnat
Occitan" and "Gascon Occitan", etc. which I propose, are valuable only for
ISO 639-2 inorder to render more tangible the hierarchical relationship
between Occitan and its dialects. However, bearing in mind that both
standards tend to "merge", I understand that these labels are not quite
convenient, although adequate. Nevertheles I think that it is necessary to
find the means to express this relationship.

Of course, this leaves open the need to clarify the intended meaning of
"oci" and it's relationship to the varieties referred to as "Auvergnat"
etc. This is just an instance of a more general problem in ISO 639,
however: a few names are not always adequate to indicate what the intended
meaning is, and what the expectations on usage are. There simply are cases
where more information is necessary (a point Gary Simons and I made in a
paper back in 2000).

One possibility for ISO 639-3 is that each entry in the code table points
to an entry in the Ethnologue or other sources to provide background
information that would make clear what the intended denotation is. At a
minimum, a "comments" field is needed, and might be a useful addition for
the ISO 639 code tables. If there were a comments field, then that is where
I would indicate for the "oci" ID, "Encompasses Auvergnat, Gascon,
Languedocien, Provençal, Shaudit, Vivaroalpine."

>>>I agree, provided that Ethnologue be modified as far as Occitan and its
dialects is concerned.

With regard to the proposed change of identifier for Old Provençal / Old
Occitan, I strongly object. Stability of identifiers is far more important
than a mnemonic relationship to preferred language names, or than having
similar identifiers for closely-related languages. If this were to be
changed, we would be subject to a very high level of flak from several
parties.

>>> The proposal I made tended to bring some consistency in the framework
of the identification of a given language and its dialects and that because
the combination "ocm" was available. However, I am higly aware that the
change of identifiers will probably bring about more troubles than comfort.

Peter Constable

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