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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  August 2008

ISOJAC August 2008

Subject:

Re: FW: ISO 639-5

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:12:13 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (180 lines)

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
> > 
> 
> 
> 

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