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  June 2005

ISOJAC June 2005

Subject:

history of library use of Serbo-Croatian

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:08:25 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (84 lines)

I summarized this issue recently for some discussions with library users
of ISO 639-2, and here is what I said.

The question arose on the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee why there was a
discrepancy between the information on the ISO 639-2 web site concerning
the status of the two-character code for Serbo-Croatian. At the first
meeting of the JAC in 2000 it was decided to deprecate the two-character
code for Serbo-Croatian, since the group approved the addition of Bosnian,
so that the 3 separate languages (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) were all
defined. (Serbian and Croatian were already defined as part of the
balloted ISO 639-2 standard).  Thus there would be no need for
Serbo-Croatian.  However, in the revision of the two-character code list,
which was published as ISO 639-1 in 2002, Serbo Croatian was listed with
the code "sh". It isn't clear if that was a mistake or intentional.

In MARC and in ISO 639-2, there are separate codes for Serbian (scc) and
Croatian (scr); after the publication of the ISO list, the captions in
MARC for those codes were changed from "Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic)" and
"Serbo-Croatian (Roman)" although the codes stayed the same.

Currently work is proceeding on a code list for ALL languages (ISO
639-3) without the need for a certain body of literature. The question
came up as part of that effort and a code "hbs" has been included for
Serbo-Croatian. It was requested that a code for Serbo-Croatian be added
to ISO 639-2.

Defining this in 639-2 would cause some confusion. Serbo-Croatian would be
like a collective code, but all of its parts are also defined. It also
would be confusing since libraries used to use the current Serbian and
Croatian codes for Serbo-Croatian in its 2 different scripts.

This situation would be similar to the case of Norwegian, where there is a
general code for Norwegian but 2 separate codes for varieties (Norwegian
Bokmal and Nynorsk) were later defined. In the MARC community we have said
that LC would not apply the new codes for Bokmal and Nynorsk, although
they are listed in the documentation.

There is the possibility of applying such a code (hbs) only to the
non-standard, non-literary varieties. For the MARC list we would probably
call it "Serbo-Croatian (Other)" to distinguish it from the other defined
codes.

Rebecca

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, John Clews wrote:

> I agree with Peter on both his points quoted below.
>
> On the specific "hbs" code for ISO 639-2, I would also like to see a
> summary of the discussions about the previous USMARC (and UKMARC) code,
> included in the round up of this. The way that they were split into "scr"
> and "scc" was quite well put, from memory, and quite a logical thing to do
> at the time, even though Serbo-Croatian still exists as an entity.
>
> Rebecca or Milicent: any chance that you could send me a summary of that?
> I seem to have archived it out of sight as it were.
>
> Many thanks in advance
>
> John
>
> --
>
>
> > There are a couple of items I've mentioned recently that were discussed
> > for a while but which need some action:
> >
> > - Serbo-Croatian: I suggested that we add "hbs" to 639-2 (it's in the
> > draft table for 639-3), but at the least we need to take action to
> > clarify the status of "sh" in 639-1.
> >
> > - "no linguistic content": I suggested that we add this; I'd like to see
> > us move toward a vote on it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Peter Constable
> > GIFT | GPTS | MICROSOFT
>
> --
>

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