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: 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, 11 Jan 2005 17:36:29 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (144 lines)

Anyway, the idea of introducing notes, comments, explanations or other
means to clarify the sense of different elements needed for the
identification of a linguistic entity, is unquestionably useful. I agree
with Rebecca ont the fact that none of us would have the time to go through
the whole standard and determine where notes are need. But I don't think
that this should be discouraging and if it is to be done there should be
once a starting point. I don't find that adding comments step by step, as
they arise is a bad solution. Surely, it doesn't seem quite consistent that
people sometimes find comments and sometimes not. But people are
nevertheles happy each time they do find information. Questions from the
users will oblige us to add explanatory notes whenever necessary.

The question of giving a more complete information to support their
identification, should probably be considered in conjunction with other
projects for modeling the language identification mechanisms and other
linguistic means, such as are being conducted by ISO TC37. The workshop for
ISO 639-4 will certainly be the occasion to discuss about this point as
well.

Anila




"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>@loc.gov> le 10/01/2005 16:28:00

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


It is a guiding principle that we do not change identifiers, and I think
we need to stick to that. We have told many people (the Croatians come to
mind) that the identifier is not an abbreviation for the language name and
that we do not change identifiers that we have previously used.

Perhaps when we consider the next published update to ISO 639 we could add
notes. How this would be done would need to be carefully considered, since
I doubt anyone would have the time to go through the standard and
determine where notes are needed. It would probably have to be done as
they arise, but then it may be misleading when many languages could
benefit from a note, but a comprehensive overview to add these might be
impossible.

Rebecca

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Christian Galinski wrote:

> Having read the various comments, I think that the clean-up relates to
> - the names
> - the scopes
> - the distinction of language and dialects...
> I see no necessity to change an identifier (of course in the notes to
> the change it must be made clear that there was a process of
> clarification). We had argued on many occasions that "code consistency"
> is not a stringent reason for changing an identifier.
>
> Rgds
> Christian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Freitag, 17. Dezember 2004 21:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 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.
>
> 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."
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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