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  March 2007

ISOJAC March 2007

Subject:

Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

From:

Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:49:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (475 lines)

Actually I think a ballot should be requested and processed. This is a
major change in terms of 639-2 as it affects the MARC standard.

Milicent Wewerka

>>> Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 03/28/07 7:05 AM >>>
Peter & Joan (and all),
 
Hoping that any JAC member that would have a problem with this, I would
say:
- no ballot needed;
- go ahead as suggested.
 
Håvard
 
--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
  Standard Norge / Standards Norway
  [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--------------------
 

________________________________

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can
settle this now



Havard: Do you think we need ballots to process new entries or name
changes for Aramaic varieties mentioned in Joan's mail, below?

 

 

Peter

 

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 

Thanks, Milicent & Joan, for comments. My immediate concern is to get
closure on the issues. There's just a handful more to introduce, but I
don't want to open new issues while we still have some that have been
open for weeks now and need closure.

 

Both Joan & Millicent are saying that this committee needs to process
these Aramaic additions, and there are name adjustments to be made as
well. Havard, do you think you should create ballots for these?

 

 

Peter

 

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 


I agree with Milicent with regard to code elements that either clearly
affect the denotation or reference information of a Part 2 code element,
or might border on having an affect. The Aramaic languages with
proposals for Part 3 come under that second grouping as being involved
in the clarification of intended meaning for code elements in Part 2.
Some of them may also be of interest for including in Part 2, which is
also justification for inviting JAC consideration.

There are dozens of new code requests in Part 3 that I would say have
no immediate impact on Part 2, and I had not planned on bringing them to
the JAC, unless you all state otherwise now. One other motivation for
requesting JAC consideration of Part 3 change requests is if there is
division regard in expressed public opinion on a change request.

-Joan




Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

03/15/2007 02:45 PM

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

To

[log in to unmask]

cc


Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 






I think it would be wise to include 639-3 changes or additions in a
process that includes in JAC. Decisions on 639-3 have an impact on
639-2 certainly in terms of scope of the definition of the languages.

Milicent Wewerka
Library of Congress

>>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 03/15/07 3:06 PM >>>
None of the parts of ISO 639 * 1, 2 or 3 * actually specify any
process for additions or changes other than the following:

- the request must be supported by a justification
- the JAC must provide a response to the RA within one month

Each part does specify voting procedures, but doesn*t clearly state
what JAC actions require a vote.

Perhaps you*re assuming SIL will independently decide about additions
to 639-3, while Joan is assuming the JAC will somehow be involved? (I
realize as editor for 639-3 one might expect I*d know what the process
is, but I just used existing text from parts 1/2.)


Peter

________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

New items in 639-3 should be processed according to the rules of
639-3.
If any if these items should be considered for 639-2, that would need
to
be processed after 639-3 registration.

Håvard

--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
 Standard Norge / Standards Norway
 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--------------------


________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
Thanks.

So, we need others to chime in on whether they agree with the general
plan. And we have some new entries for part 3 and possible part 2 to
consider * I don*t know how we need to process those. Havard?


Peter

________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now


A summary of actions needed to adopt:

[oar] Old Aramaic (639-3)
Part 3: Change name to add dates: Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE);
additional name: Ancient Aramaic (up to 700 BCE)
[include dates in all name forms?]
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2


[arc] Aramaic (639-2 and 639-3)
Part 2 and Part 3: Change name to Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE);
additional name: Imperial Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE)
change French name(s) as needed


A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
639-3:
[avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.
Considering the general lack of extant documents of this period, 639-2
may not have need of it.


[tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (639-3)
Part 3: change name back to earlier draft designation (from
Ethnologue)
and add dates: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.


A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
639-3:
[jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
This is the variety of Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan, as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2



Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

03/12/2007 11:46 AM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>


To

[log in to unmask]

cc



Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now










This looks good to me.



Joan, can you summarize exactly what actions are needed to adopt?





Peter



________________________________

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now



Hello All,

After some research and a round of discussion on Aramaic with Anthony
Aristar, this is what we propose:

> [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
Aramaic
> PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE) CHANGE NAME BACK TO
ETHNOLOGUE DESIGNATION: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
>
> (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
only
4
> total available [m--]
> [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
confused
> as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- but
it
is
> already assigned.)
>In addition:
> PROPOSED code element: [jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca.
200-1200
CE)
> to designate the Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan,
> as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.

The return of [tmr] to the specific designation of Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic is significant because to consider a single "Talmudic Aramaic"
really would be proposing a collection (which we do not want to do),
as
the Aramaic languages of the 4th period (as listed here) are
definitely
distinct languages and are well attested. Classical Syriac and
Classical
Mandaic are others in this bunch that have their own code elements
already (and are not affected by this proposal).

Have a great week,

Joan

----- Forwarded by Joan Spanne/IntlAdmin/WCT on 03/12/2007 10:01 AM
-----
Anthony Aristar <[log in to unmask]>

03/09/2007 12:43 PM


To

[log in to unmask]

cc



Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic













You are precisely accurate, Joan. Up to around 200 AD the varieties
of
Aramaic were similar enough at each time-period to be called dialects.
But then the divergence of dialects which diachronic change naturally
brings about, accompanied by the sharp political division between the
Roman Empire and the Parthian (and later Persion) Empires, started to
bring about such substantial changes that it becomes more reasonable
to
talk about distinct languages forming in different regions at the same
time. It shouldn't have a single code, unless this code is clearly a
collection.

If the code-set is to be used in a scholarly fashion, keep the
Ethnologue designation Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and add at least one
more code for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, to designate the Aramaic
found in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, as well as the
Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim, which is closely related to the
Onkelos/Jonathan dialect. Talmudic Aramaic is emphatically a
collection, and is not written in a single language: we require at
least two language codes here, one the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
mentioned here, and the other the Aramaic found in the Babylonian
Talmud. And the idea that the Talmudic material of the early period is
somehow the "same" as the material from almost a 1000 years later...

This is a very strange process, isn't it?

Anthony

Quoting [log in to unmask]:

> Hi Anthony and Peter,
>
> I am trying to nail down the Aramaic situation for a concrete
proposal to
> the JAC. I have one remaining problem, which has not really come up
> explicitly yet, but I am concerned it will eventually.
>
> In a simple world, I would propose:
> [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
Aramaic
> PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
>
> (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
only
4
> total available [m--]
> [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
confused
> as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- which
is
> already assigned.)
>
> However, with my gift for making simple things complex, I am
bothered
by
> the last entry:
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> which in the Ethnologue is called Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.
>
> My limited research tells me that this 4th period in the history of
the
> Aramaic languages is not as uniform as the 1st and 2nd (nor is
Middle
> Aramaic, but it has far less extant material and therefore no
settled
> designations). The 4th period may be divided between Eastern and
Western
> groups. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (the Ethnologue designation of
[tmr]) is
> a member of the Eastern group. Now we are proposing that [tmr]
encompasses
> more than that variety. The reason this bothers me is that [syc]
Classical
> Syriac and [myz] Classical Mandaic are the other two members of this
> Eastern Group, but they both still have their own identifiers. So
also
> does Samaritan Aramaic of the Western group.
>
> I think it would be more sensible to retain the Ethnologue
designation
> Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and possibly add appropriate code elements
other
> members of the Western group (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and
> Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic), if warranted.
>
> As it is in the simple proposal, Talmudic Aramaic looks more like a
> collection to me. You know this topic far better than I, Anthony. Am
I off
> base with my concern?
>
> -Joan



             **************************************
Anthony Aristar, Director, Institute for Language Information &
Technology
                Professor of Linguistics
Moderator, LINGUIST Principal Investigator, EMELD
Project
Linguistics Program
Dept. of English [log in to unmask]
Eastern Michigan University 2000 Huron River Dr, Suite 104
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
U.S.A.

URL: http://linguistlist.org/aristar/
             **************************************

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