Peter wrote: [snipped]:
>Thus, I'd be in favour of the following actions:
>- resolve 5.15 of Issues to Resolve by adopting option 1
>- changing the name for "fy" / "fry" from "Frisian" to "Western Frisian,
Frysk"
>- add *two* of the requested additions to 639-2: Northern Frisian and
Eastern Frisian
I agree completely with this option as described by Peter.
He also wrote:
> Re the ID for Northern Frisian: Indeed, FRN is not used in the draft
table for 639-3, so it would, to that extent, be possible to use that
for Northern Frisian. I would need to consult with SIL regarding the
impact of a change from FRR, however, before supporting an change to
FRN.
We should definitely NOT make any changes to ISO 639-3, or the SIL
Enthologue.
It would make extra work, and indeed once the possibility was opened, it
would be requested endlessly.
However, _if_ there is a rquirement for a code for a macro-language
Frisian (and I don't think there is one really), the fact that an
otherwise unused code like frn exists _might_ be useful in allocating a
code for that.
Whatever happens - keep it simple, and Peter's suggestions are very well
argued, as usual.
John Clews
---- Original Message in full ----
Subject: Re: New ISO 639 proposals: Western Frisian, Northern Frisian,
Eastern Frisian -- Discussion
From: "Peter Constable" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, August 17, 2005 6:58 pm
To: [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appear to be two issues requiring discussion:
1. whether to treat the existing ID FRY as a macrolanguage or as the
individual language Western Frisian
2. the ID for Northern Frisian
Re FRY: The relationship between fy/fry and the three varieties
identified in Ethnologue is raised in section 5.15 of the Issues to
Resolve document - i.e. this was already an issue for the JAC to resolve
even before this request was submitted. In that document, I outlined three
options, including equating fy/fry with Western Frisian (option 1) and
treating fy/fry as a macrolanguage (option 3). I suggested the
macrolanguage solution and applied that in the draft code table for 639-3,
though I didn't have specific reasons for that choice - it was no more
than a straw man, a starting point for discussion.
Mr. van den Muijzenberg's suggestion, of course, corresponds to option 1:
equate the existing entry in 639-2 "fry" with Western Frisian. He appears
to suggest a slight variation of option 1, namely that only the alpha-3 ID
"fry" is equated with Western Frisian, and that the alpha-2 ID "fy" be
treated as a macrolanguage ID with a corresponding alpha-3 ID added. I'm
not sure why he suggests that option. My inclination would be to say that
existing implementations will have assumed that "fy" and "fry" are
equivalent, and that we shouldn't change that.
My only concern with option 1 would be if it would be problematic to
existing implementations to exclude Northern and Eastern Frisian from the
denotation of fy/fry. Every indication I've seen suggests that it would
not be a problem, and that existing uses of fy/fry most likely to be for
Western Frisian.
Peter Constable
--
|