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  March 2006

ISOJAC March 2006

Subject:

Chinese (was RE: New ISO 639 proposal - N'Ko - Discussion)

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:46:19 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

There are ways to deal with Chinese variants.

zh is *very widely* used in a generic way -- any Chinese variety using Chinese characters -- which was one of the main motivators for the notion of macrolanguage. 693-3 has identifiers for specific Chinese languages, including Putonghua (cmn) and Cantonese (yue). Anyone using ISO 639-3 will be able to use the specific identifiers or the more general macrolanguage identifier according to the need. ISO 15924 has script identifiers for Simplified and Traditional characters, so these can be used in combination with language identifiers to capture those disctinctions.

In RFC 3066 (and it's successor -- now approved but still awaiting a number), these are all already accommodated:

zh = Chinese (any variety, any written form)
zh-Hant = Chinese in traditional characters (any language variety)
zh-Hans = Chinese in simplified characters (any language variety)
zh-cmn = Putonghua Chinese (any written form)
zh-cmn-Hant = Putonghua Chinese in traditional characters
zh-cmn-Hans = Putonghua Chinese in simplified characters
zh-yue = Cantonese Chinese (any written form)
zh-yue-Hant = Cantonese Chinese in traditional characters
zh-yue-Hans = Cantonese Chinese in simplified characters

These are some of the tags presently available for use. Something like zh-cmn-Hant-CA (Puthonghua in traditional characters, as used in Canada) isn't presently available, but it will be once we get 639-3 published and make a further revision to the RFC to support that.


Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Christian Galinski
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New ISO 639 proposal - N'Ko - Discussion
> 
> 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

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