If N'ko really is like Chinese - I would have a problem...
If it is more like those many "Englishes" - I would agree to include it
in 639-2.
For me the "zh"-question is NOT yet satisfactorily solved. Putonghua and
Cantonese are very different not only in pronunciation, but - to a
lesser degree - in writing (quite a few other Chinese characters) as
well as in lexic. Not to mention the script variants from Singapore, via
HK and Taiwan to Beijing and further on to SF or Vancouver...
Rgds
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
Infoterm - International Information Centre for Terminology
Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
T: +43-664-344 6181
[log in to unmask] - http://www.infoterm.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize
co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide
__________________________________________________
THIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR ALL KNOWN VIRUSES
-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Michael Everson
Sent: Montag, 27. März 2006 18:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New ISO 639 proposal - N'Ko - Discussion
At 20:46 -0800 2006-03-24, Peter Constable wrote:
>I had considered macrolanguage by what seemed like an analogous
>situation to Chinese: various distinct languages, but there is a
>written form that (to some extent) can be used by all. But with the
>further explanation Michael provides, it doesn't sound like that at
>all.
>
>The ID "zh" is widely used for "Chinese" text; as such, it's
>entirely appropriate to refer to content that is in Mandarin "zh"
>versus Cantonese "zh" versus Hokkien "zh" etc. If N'Ko is a
>macrolanguage, then it should make sense to refer to the Bambara
>variety of N'Ko versus the Maninka variety of N'Ko etc. But if I
>understand Michael's description correctly, that would *not* be
>appropriate.
>
>Michael gives Interlingua as an analogy. That is not like "zh".
>
>Given what I've heard from Michael so far, I think that, if we code
>it, it should be considered an individual language, not a
>macrolanguage, and not a register or dialect of some other language.
I agree.
By the way. N'Ko Alphabet Day is 14 April. If the JAC could approve
and publish the application for N'Ko (nqo as it happens) *on* 14
April, it will make a lot of people happy. I know, you don't *have*
to make the effort to do this, but it would be rather nice for the
community.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
|