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  July 2007

ISOJAC July 2007

Subject:

Re: Valencian

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:52:33 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (99 lines)

Perhaps we should have a mechanism to include a ISO 3166 part 2 code after
the language code, as we do with country codes (i.e. country
subdivision). That could help make the distinction. Of course people will
still disagree with using a code based on a different form of the language
name than the one they are saying is a distinct language.

I agree with Peter that it's not very convincing. I received a huge box of
material that was supposed to prove that Valencian should be established
as a separate language, but in it was a document (maybe the same one that
Peter refers to from the l'Acadhmia Valenciana de la Llengua) that clearly
said Valencian is the same language as Catalan but spoken in Valencia. And
the many emails and letters I've gotten about it have been people from
only a few organizations. They clearly are lobbying. It reminds me of the
Croatians lobbying to change the language code for 639-2/B.

Rebecca

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Peter Constable wrote:

> Thanks for the report, Joan.
>
> Of all the changes, clearly the split of Valencian from Catalan is the
> most significant and most controversial. IMO, we should remain very
> cautious regarding this proposed change. Clearly, this is a political
> issue, and we need to be careful that we not become engaged in more
> than we should.
>
> While 22 of the 28 comments were in support of the change, 13 of them
> come from members of one institution, the Polytechnical University of
> Valencia,. These are teachers of engineering, mathematics, physics,
> chemistry... they are providing personal opinions, not expert
> linguistic or sociolinguistic analysis. Not that all the comments
> against were from people with linguistic or socilinguistic expertise;
> we just need to be careful not to be led by sheer numbers alone. What
> we *don't* have is comments from linguistic experts that don't have an
> emotional or political vested interest.
>
> Looking at the comments, I am strongly swayed by the following:
>
> - The analysis of the Spanish Supreme Court, which comes out against
> claims that Valencian is a distinct language.

> - The analysis of l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua, cited in the
> Supreme Court document, which states that Valencian, Catalan and
> Balear are one language:
>
> The agreement of the Valencian Academy of the Language of 9 of
> February of 2005 is specially significant, by that it is approved the
> opinion on the principles and criteria for the defense of the
> denomination and the organization of the Valencian. In this opinion
> one affirms that own and historical the language of the Valencians,
> from the point of view of the philology, is also the one that they
> share the Independent Communities of Catalonia and the Balearic
> Islands and the Principality of Andorra, and that the different ones
> you speak of all these territories constitute a language, a same
> linguistic system; one also says that to share a language it does not
> imply that the Valencians do not have own signs of identity and
> characteristics, and that perceive them like clearly differentiated
> from those of other towns that use that same language; and that is a
> fact that in Spain are two equally legal denominations to designate
> this language: Valencian the one of and the one of Catalan.
>
> (Translation courtesy of WorldLingo.)
>
> If we need a basis to reject the request while claiming to remain
> apolitical, we could cite the Supreme Court document, which appears to
> reflect a greater degree of analysis than we could provide, and is the
> *one* commentary we have received that appears to evaluate without a
> priori bias.
>
> There are two arguments made by those supporting the request that I'd
> like to comment on:
>
>
> - 'To our surprise , what used to be a a historical golden language
> (Valenciano) has now become a "dialect". And what used to be a dialect
> ( Barceloni/Catalan) has now become a "language"...' (Teresa Puerto
> Ferre -- #21)
>
> Our position should be that ISO 639 does *not* claim Valencian is a
> dialect of or has lower status than Catalan. Rather, ISO 639 considers
> "Valencian" and "Catalan" to be alternate names for one language and
> codes these names with a common identifier.
>
> - "Not possessing an ISO code for the Valencian language puts hurdles
> for the execution of major linguistic and IT projects, some of them
> already in progress and others to be tackled in the near future."
> (Juli Amadeu Àrias i Burdeos -- #27)
>
> It should be noted that no specific requirement for a separate
> identifier for linguistic or IT projects has been in any way
> demonstrated. (IMO, we should require such evidence before accepting
> this request.) It should further be noted that in protocols that
> support IETF Language Tags, the tag "ca-valencia" is provided to
> declare content as "Valencian", as opposed to "Catalan".
>
> Peter
>

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