At 07:23 +0200 2006-08-19, Christian Galinski wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I had tried my best to argue the cae that for me
>there is enough proof that Valencian - from the
>point of view of language use and status
>qualifies for entry in ISO 639.
I don't want argument. I want evidence!
I also want the point about Brazilian and
European Portuguese addressed. Those two
"languages" differ greatly in vocabulary,
spelling, and pronunciation, yet no one has
suggested that they be divided with a 639 code. I
cannot believe (show me proof) that Valencian
differs from Catalan more significantly.
>I agree with Michael that a linguist does not
>agree, but from a linguistic point of view we
>would have to delete quite a number of languages
>even form ISO 639-1.
Be specific about which languages, please. But in
any case that is not a reason to add another one.
>Valencian - as near as it might be to Catalan -
>is used in Valencian legislation and public
>life, on bilingual streeet signs, etc.
Signs bilingual in Catalan and Valencian? Or?
>I can hardly see why we should deny them an
>entry of its own in 639 (in view of Bosnian,
>Croatian, Slowak, etc.).
Serbian, you mean. And the Registration Authority
isn't in the business of being nice to people who
want to assert themselves.
>This is a completely different case than for
>e.g. "Kölsch", where applicants provided lots of
>documents, but could not produce evidence for
>official use and recognition.
Unless proven otherwise by some sort of evidence,
Valencian is to Catalan as Kölsch is to German.
That is my opinion, anyway. I don't have a vote.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
|