LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


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  October 2007

ISOJAC October 2007

Subject:

Re: Proposition for coding a new language name "Montenegrin"

From:

Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:31:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (365 lines)

I think it is important that we know exactly what the new constitution
states.  Does anyone have a copy of the original that can be consulted? 
I will try to find one also.

Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress


>>> Joan Spanne <[log in to unmask]> 10/23/07 12:10 PM >>>
While linguistically, the situation of Montenegrin and Serbian possibly

parallels that of Valencian and Catalan, politically they do not. 
Montenegrin has been declared to be an official national language
distinct 
(though hard to distinguish!) from Serbian. (My primary grounds for not

encoding Valencian separately was the clear unity of the language in 
statements from governmental bodies and their designated academies.) It

seems to me the closer parallel is with Romanian [ron]/[rum/[ro] and 
Moldavian [mol]/[mo]. I was in favor of merging Moldavian into
Romanian, 
but apart from Peter, it seemed no one else on the JAC supported that 
(discussion, if any, predated my participation on the JAC).

But following the Valencian logic, another option could be considered:

should Montenegrin be included as another name for [srp]/[scc]/[sr] 
Serbian? (I had nearly suggested this last week). I do not think 
Montenegrin has any place next to (as another name for) Serbo-Croatian,

the macrolanguage in 639-3. At issue: is Montenegrin =now= any more 
closely aligned with (or more similar to) Serbian than is Croatian or 
Bosnian and what will its development be? Without ethnic, religious,
and 
major script usage issues at play (as with Bosnian and Croatian), the 
grounds for separation seem much less certain (and the separations
between 
the other three are already uncertain enough). The practical
orthography 
seems to be the area in which Montenegin proponents are working, to 
standardize the writing of the ijekavian dialect as distinct from the 
ekavian dialect of Serbia.

The latest update to the Wikipedia article is of interest, updated last

Friday (and surprisingly well documented, though likely biased);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_language 

I also found this discussion of help:
http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=271 
This last one, though, highlights the parallel between Montenegrin and

Croatian and Bosnian. IF we were to take a position that placed 
Montenegrin and Serbian together, and subsequently the languages
diverge 
(as there is movement to do, though no telling at this point what
progress 
it will make over time), then we will be faced with a need to split 
Serbian/Montenegrin. Part 2 does not handle splits gracefully. (In
fact, 
if this were strictly a 639-3 code element, I would possibly be 
considering this even now as a split of Serbian, as everyone seems to 
acknowledge that Montenegrin is a "dialect" of Serbian.)

This link from the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (UK) gives

great background on the linguistic side, though it was written late in

2006.
http://www.pcgn.org.uk/Montenegro2.pdf 

It seems we have three possibilities:
take no action (in effect, reject the request, perhaps subject to 
subsequent development)
create a separate code element for Montenegrin (I presume it would not
be 
handled as a Serbian split)
add Montenegrin as a name to be used with [srp]/[scc]/[sr]

Are there any others? Personally, I prefer 1, but the JAC pattern seems
to 
be more along the lines of 2, and it is difficult to argue against any

form of inclusion for a recognized national language.

-Joan




Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
2007-10-23 09:17 AM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask] 
cc

Subject
Re: Proposition for coding a new language name "Montenegrin" inside ISO

639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" Serbo-Croatian) and ISO 639-2 "mno"

(fwd)






In spite of the B/C/S mess, there isn’t anybody for whom this makes
sense 
n terms of technical merits. Nobody gains, and everybody loses. 
 
These IDs don’t exist simply for the sake of some documentarian
wanting to 
record that some language identity exists. They exist for practical use
in 
information systems. Creating a new identifier for Montenegrin will
only 
create problems in practical applications. Librarians and other
catalogers 
will have to make the decision Is this record in Montenegrin or
Serbian? 
which in principle has no answer – arbitrariness is avoided only if
the 
source is identifiably within one of these two countries, and very
often 
that will not be the case or the information will not be available. 
Terminologists, localizers and others maintaining language resources
would 
need to manage redundant content.
 
I realize that there’s more involved than purely technical concerns,
but I 
would push back on this request until we have very strong indication of

necessity. Simply because someone reports that some body declares their

language to be called “Montenegrin” (or “Valencian”) is not
enough to rush 
to make changes.
 
 
Peter
 
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf 
Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Proposition for coding a new language name "Montenegrin" 
inside ISO 639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" Serbo-Croatian) and ISO

639-2 "mno" (fwd)
 

Having recognized Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian separately, it would
seem 
that there is no line of defense against a separate Montenegrin, but it

should also make a 4th in the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage, with regard
to 
639-3. Serbo-Croatian [sh] is already deprecated in 639-1, so we should

not have to revisit that discussion. However, the point does beg the 
question:  where would one discover that [sh] is part of 639-1 but is 
deprecated, apart from the ISO 639-3 website (which only recently has 
noted the fact of its deprecation), since there is no list of ISO 639-1

codes on the 639-1/RA website, and it is not listed anywhere on the ISO

639-2 RA's site (since it is not encoded in Part 2, and the LoC site
has 
no separate alpha-2 code list)? 

-Joan 



"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 
2007-10-16 03:23 PM 


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



To
[log in to unmask] 
cc

Subject
Re: Proposition for coding a new language name "Montenegrin" inside ISO

639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" Serbo-Croatian) and ISO 639-2 "mno"

(fwd)
 








Dear ISO 639 JAC members:

See the below. I did receive the submission back in March, and thought
I
sent it on to Havard, but am not certain. I do not seem to have it
electronically anymore, but Mr. Lang did fax me the submission. He says

the
same in the submitted form as he says below.

This should be a controversial issue. I do realize that the code "mno"
is
already taken-- we would suggest another one if there is merit to this
request.

Rebecca

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:33:37 +0200
From: "[iso-8859-1] Lang Gérard" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[iso-8859-1] Håvard Hjulstad" <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask] 
Cc: [log in to unmask], "[iso-8859-1] Lang Gérard" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Proposition for coding a new language name "Montenegrin"
   inside ISO 639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" Serbo-Croatian) and
ISO
   639-2 "mno"

Dear Havard,

I thank you for your answer.

I must insist that my proposal has effectively been proposed 
electronically, using the form on the ISO 639 JAC web site 
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2jac.html on Monday 03/09/2007 at 
12:28, just before issuing my linked message for you and
[log in to unmask] the same day at 12:30. I have a copy of my electronic
propposition to the web site
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/iso639-2form.php .

Bien cordialement.

Gérard LANG


________________________________

                De : Håvard Hjulstad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
                Envoyé : dimanche 14 octobre 2007 14:04
                À : Lang Gérard; [log in to unmask] 
                Objet : SV: Proposition for coding a new language name

"Montenegrin" inside ISO 639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" 
Serbo-Croatian) and ISO 639-2 "mno"
 
 
                Dear Gérard,
 
                Any proposals to change the alpha-2 og alpha-3 language

code of ISO 639-1 and -2 needs to be submitted electronically, using
the 
form on the ISO 639 JAC web site: 
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/iso639jac.html.
 
                Best regards,
                Håvard Hjulstad
                [correct email address for work-related communication
is 
[log in to unmask]] 
 
 
 
________________________________

                Fra: Lang Gérard [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
                Sendt: 12. oktober 2007 15:39
                Til: Lang Gérard; [log in to unmask] 
                Kopi: [log in to unmask] 
                Emne: RE: Proposition for coding a new language name 
"Montenegrin" inside ISO 639-1 "me" (and deprecation of "sh" 
Serbo-Croatian) and ISO 639-2 "mno"
 
 

                Dear All, 

                Do you have taken any decision concerning my
proposition 
relative
to the language name "Montenegrin" ?

                Regards. 

                Gérard LANG 

 _____________________________________________ 
                                 De :    Lang Gérard 
                                 Envoyé :        lundi 3 septembre 2007

12:30 
                                 À :     [log in to unmask] 
                                 Cc :    [log in to unmask]; Lang
Gérard 
                                 Objet : Proposition for coding a new 
language name "Montenegrin" inside ISO 639-1 "me" (and deprecation of
"sh" 
Serbo-Croatian) and ISO 639-2 "mno"

                                 Dear All, 

                                 Considering that the article 12 of the

soon-to-be future
new Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro writes:

                                 "In Montenegro, Montenegrin shall be
the 
language in
official use. Cyrillic and Latin alphabets shall be deemed to be
equal." 

                                 I propose to insert a new language
name 
"Montenegrin"
inside ISO 639-1 (code element "me") and ISO 639-2 (code element
"mno").

                                 Moreover, as it appears that 
"Montenegrin" is only a new
name for the same language, whose another old name has been
"Serbo-Croatian" that is being coded inside ISO 639-1 (code element
"sh"),
but not inside ISO 639-2 (in contrariety with the promise in the
common
phrase written inside the introductions of ISO 639-1 and of ISO 639-2
that:

                                 "The languages listed in ISO 639-1 are
a 
subset of the
languages listed in this part of ISO 639; every language code in the
two
letters code set has has a corresponding language code in the alpha-3
list, but not necessarily vice-versa",

                                 I also propose to deprecate the old
code 
element "sh", so
that the promise can be filled !

                                 Gérard LANG 

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