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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  August 2005

ISOJAC August 2005

Subject:

Messages about Cantonese

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:03:11 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (100 lines)

Dear ISO JAC:

Please see the following exchange about Cantonese as a result of a change
request. Is there indeed evidence that there is a growing distinction
between Cantonese and other Chinese languages in the written form as well
as spoken? There are also comments about the code chosen in ISO 639-3, but
I would be inclined to stick to what I said about how we choose particular
identifiers. Going by the normative text in the standard, we would have
chosen one based on the vernacular, since usage in national and
international databases pertains to how the codes WERE chosen in the
standard, rather than how they will be chosen in the future. But this is
an unusual sitation that wasn't foreseen when 639-2 was written (i.e. to
develop 639-3 based on Ethnologue codes for those not already defined).

Rebecca

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:13:51 +0800
From: [log in to unmask]
To: Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: New ISO 639-2 code

Dear Rebecca,

Thank your for furthering the issues about Cantonese as a written language to
consideration. As for the choice of the code I would like to know if existing
codes shall always prevail. If a code is based whenever possible on
vernacular form in the native language or in English, then it is possible for
Cantonese to be assigned a code as such, that codes such as "can", "gdw" or
"ktw" is not currently taken by any language. I am also interested to know if
"yue" is already the established usage in national and international databases.
Having a code that ressembles the common native or English name would
facilitate the use of the code as a device to identify the language.

Sca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: New ISO 639-2 code

> Dear Sca:
>
> Thank you for your message. I will consult further with the ISO 639 Joint
> Advisory Committee on the issues you raise about Cantonese as a written
> language. You also asked about the choice of code in ISO 639-3. We have
> a number of rules detailed in the 639 standard in section 4.1
> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/normtext.html)
> We say there that future development will be based whenever possible on
> the vernacular form. However, in this case in the development of ISO
> 639-3, there was an existing code list, the Ethnologue list, and the
> standard was based on this when codes already existed (established usage
> of codes in national and international databases was a criterion in the
> development of ISO 639-2). The code "yue" was used there. It is important
> to remember that these language codes are not intended to be abbreviations
> for the language, but, as this section of the standard states, as a device
> to identify a given language. There are many cases where we are unable to
> use anything close to an abbreviation of any form of the name, since the
> combinations of letters may already have been taken.
>
> Rebecca
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> ^^ Chair, ISO 639-2 Maintenance Agency ^^
> ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> ^^ ^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> Dear Rebecca,
>>
>> I understand the standard was developed for written languages, but the
>> fact that Cantonese does exist in written form has to be acknowledged.
>> They are research on Cantonese in its written form, for instance, Don
>> Snow's "Cantonese as a written language"
>> (http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/phorum/read.php?1,15887,37288)
>> published by the Hong Kong University Press.
>>
>> I am interested to know why the code for Cantonese is based on the
>> word "Yue", instead of "Cantonese". "Yue" is not the way the language
>> is known in English. It is not even the common native name, and,
>> rather, it's a transliteration based on the Mandarin pronunciation of
>> an alternative native name which is far less common. The common native
>> name of the language as pronounced in Cantonese is Kwong Tung Waa,
>> literally meaning speech of Canton (now known as Guangdong,
>> transliterated based on Mandarin pronunciation). As far as I am
>> concerned the code should be derived from the common English name or
>> the common native name of the language. And that was the reason why I
>> suggested to use "can" as the code.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention.
>>
>> Sca

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