On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Joan Spanne wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Before Library of Congress gets set to publish ISO 639-5, what is going to
> be done about the resolution to the three problems that have been
> discussed:
>
> 1. [car] is Galibi Carib in ISO 639-2/3, but was listed as "Carib
> Languages" in ISO 639-5. It must be removed from 639-5, with a correction
> note.
Yes, it should be removed or a different one added for the group of Carib
languages (also called Cariban languages).
> 2. [day] Land Dayak Languages is missing from ISO 639-5
Yes, we are considering it a group so it needs to be added.
> 3. [pap] Papuan Languages cannot properly be considered a subset of
> Trans-New Guinea Languages. The better interpretation, both in current
> linguistic usage and in Library of Congress MARC usage, is to consider
> Trans-New Guinea a subset of Papuan Languages.
Papuan could be used as the broader concept.
We are working on setting up a page for 639-5. When we do so we can make
these corrections.
Rebecca
> This last item has not come up in detail before (apart from a discussion
> of Papuan last year), but I did raise it with Håvard some time ago. I am
> including part of a memo I had written to Håvard and Rebecca in May:
>
> Last September, I had doubts about the placement of Papuan languages in
> the table. I agreed with Milicent that they are =not= Austronesian, but
> did not have evidence to counter her statement that they are a subfamily
> of the Trans-New Guinea phylum, and did not have time to go looking for
> it. I now have evidence, found in the course of my own maintenance work
> for 639-3. Sometime earlier this year, a colleague brought to my attention
> a work by Stephen Wurm that goes a long way toward clarifying the
> situation:
> Wurm, Stephen A. 2003. "The language situation and language endangerment
> in the Greater Pacific Area." In Janse, Mark and Sigman Tol, Language
> death and language maintenance: theoretical, practical and descriptive
> approaches. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 240. John Benjamins.
>
> Papuan languages are best understood as the Non-Austronesian,
> non-Australian languages of the region of and around New Guinea. They are
> not all genetically related, but rather, are a geographically delineated
> grouping of numerous separate phyla. Five of these are comparatively
> large, the largest, far and away, being the Trans-New Guinea Phylum. The
> other four large phyla are:
> Sepik-Ramu [JAS 2008-8-6 This is also undergoing revision in the
> literature now]
> Torricelli
> Geelvink Bay
> West Papuan
>
> In addition, there are these smaller, sometimes less clearly defined
> groups [JAS 2008-8-6: some of these are old classifications that have been
> rearranged in the past few years]:
> Sko
> Left May
> Kwomtari-Baibai
> Amto-Musian
> Border
> Trans-Fly and Bukala River
> Sentani
> Nimboran
> Senagi
> Tor
> Kwerba
> Mairasi
> other isolates
>
> The East Papuan Phylum is another geographically delineated set of 9
> semi-distinct groups which Wurm had tentatively grouped together in his
> early research (1975), which he now agrees is probably not a single phylum
> (after Ross, 2001). (The Ethnologue 15th ed still reflects Wurm's earlier
> East Papuan classification. Ethnologue also classes Trans-Fly and Bukala
> River, Sentani, Nimboran, Senagi, Tor, Kwerba and Mairasi within Trans-New
> Guinea in the 15th ed. I do not know how much of this may be revised in
> the 16th ed.)
>
> An analysis of the individual languages listed in the MARC Code List for
> Languages as coming under the collective code element for Papuan languages
> shows that Papuan cannot be considered a subset of Trans-New Guinea. The
> attached spreadsheet is a list of the 152 languages, with the
> corresponding code element from ISO 639-3, and the highest level of
> classification into which these code elements are placed according to
> Ethnologue 15th ed. The languages included represent constituents of all
> of the five large phyla, and several of the smaller ones.
>
> I think the best interpretation of Papuan for ISO 639-5 would be to
> reconcile it with Wurm's groupings and put Trans-New Guinea =under=
> Papuan, rather than over it. If we do not address this, there will be
> conflicts in the relationships between parts 2, 3 and 5.
>
> "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 2008-07-29 08:28 AM
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: FW: ISO 639-5
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, we are planning to do that.
> I will say by the end of August but will try to get to it before that
> (except that I have some vacation plans).
> I will ask the group to look it over when there is a draft.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing that LOC is planning to have info on ISO 639-5 posted on
> > their 639 Web site. If so, can we get an ETA on when that is expected
> > to be available? (A dependency to ISO 639-5 is being taken in the
> > update to RFC 4646.)
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:37 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ISO 639-5
> >
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:
> >
> > >> where and when will the details of ISO 639-5 standard be freely
> > >> available?
> > >
> > > Never? This is ISO, after all.
> >
> > I hope this only refers to the details of the standard proper, not the
> > code list, which is still not freely available.
> >
> > As editor of 4645bis, I was a strong proponent of including the ISO
> > 639-5 code elements in the expanded Language Subtag Registry, provided
> > that the 639-5 code list would be made freely available with little
> > delay. If this is not going to happen -- and I'm basing that likelihood
> > not so much on Stéphane's remark as on the continuing lack of
> > information from the RA -- then perhaps we in LTRU need to revisit that
> > decision. We require all of the other core standards to have freely
> > available code lists.
> >
> > --
> > Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> > http://www.ewellic.org
> > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > [log in to unmask]
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> >
>
>
>
|