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  December 2008

ISOJAC December 2008

Subject:

AW: Fw: Question from Montenegro

From:

Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:56:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (169 lines)

In the case of German, there is no difficulty to distinguish between deAT,
deCH and deDE etc.
We had lots of arguments in connection with Serbian - Croatian, Bosnian,
Catalan - Valencian, Czech - Slowak, and others and now Montenegrin. 
I do not want to repeat them, only point out that cases like this are going
to increase.
Rgds
Christian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von
Debbie Garside
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. Dezember 2008 11:32
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: Fw: Question from Montenegro

If I put my translation agency hat on, I would want to see a separate code
for Montenegrin.

As language policies are established and documents translated you will find
that the Montenegrin government will create Terminology bases and style
guides for Montenegrin purposes.  There will be differences between these
terminology bases and those already in use in Serbia.  That is not to say
that the language of Montenegro and Serbia will not be mutually intelligible
- they will be, I am sure. But, nevertheless, their language use is likely
to be different and will, undoubtedly, change over the course of time.

Here in Wales we add to TermCymru (the Welsh Assembly Government Terminology
Base) on an almost daily basis and our style guides are consistently
updated.  I am sure that this is the case for most countries.

We could say that the country code may be used to differentiate between the
language variants.  But is that truly acceptable?  I think not, it makes it
messy in a database if you just want a single alpha2/3/4 code and are
presented with hyphenation or two fields to query.

That said, as a database/search engine user I would want to be able to query
for documents in Montenegrin and also be presented with options in other
mutually intelligent varieties.  But this is something that can be dealt
with by search engines or by setting end user preferences.

What we need is the hierarchy of ISO 639-6.  A hierarchical system deals
with this quite easily. The code for Serbian is retained but two new codes
are created as children.  Legacy systems can still use the parent code but
newer systems will be built to return matches on either child or parent or
child, followed by parent followed by sibling in a weighted match.

We need to stop trying to define languages - or rather being forced to
define languages in the various parts of ISO 639 and get on with the
Standards as Database initiative where everything is related and new
entities can be slotted in as and when the splitters and lumpers decide it
is appropriate.    

Just my two pennies worth.

Best

Debbie 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Peter Constable
Sent: 03 December 2008 16:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fw: Question from Montenegro

I think we should reply suggesting that, while the country of Montenegro is,
reasonably, establishing a separate identity from Serbia, as far as we
understand there are not, linguistically, significant differences between
Serbian and Montenegrin, implying that users would generally be best served
if a single ID were used for tagging Serbian and Montenegrin content, and
therefore that we suggest listing the name for the IDs "sr" / "srp" as
"Montenegrin, Serbian" (I just listed them in alphabetic order).

As you say, we may end up having to match the Bosnian precedent, but while
there's reason to question whether that is what would be best for users we
should engage to get them to understand the implications -- cons as well as
pros -- and see if they still think it's a good idea.

Also, since the introduction of separate language identifiers would impact a
very broad range of applications and users, I think we should look for
indication that this would be what a broad range of Montenegrin users would
want. E.g., is the National Library going to tag Serbian and Montenegrin
documents separately, or would they end up using just an ID for Montenegrin?
If the latter, then they don't need two separate IDs, yet two separate IDs
would have been imposed on every other user community and application
throughout the world. What they are asking for involves little cost for them
but could involve tremendous cost for others.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Rebecca S Guenther
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Question from Montenegro

We continue to get this request. This one is from the national library.
Last time it was discussed we said we would wait and see if linguistic
differences emerge. I have a few other outstanding requests for the same
(mostly from Gerard Lang).

Assuming that this hasn't happened, we will need to explain (again)
that we don't "award" a language code because of the use of a name for a
language in a particular country. As for Montenegrin, I suppose we would
add that name as an alternate for Serbian. Of course, in this case the
submitter argues that the 3 other languages have their own language
code. Having given one to Bosnian in 2000 it is hard not to give it now
to Montenegrin. But we can't really undo what was done. This seems to be
the same sort of case as Moldovan to me. So then perhaps the action is
to add Montenegrin as an alternate name.

Perhaps Hĺvard would like to craft a statement for the requester
(unless there is further discussion).

Rebecca

>>> "Vjenceslava Sevaljevic" <[log in to unmask]> 12/02/08 9:01
AM >>>
Dear Madam/Sir,

We haven't any answer on our question.
If there is any possibility please answer as sun as possible.

Best wishes
Vjenceslava Sevaljevic
National Library of Montenegro

-----


----- Original Message -----
From: Vesna Vuckovic
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Question from Montenegro


Dear Madam/Sir,
Is there a possibility to obtain a provisional language code for
Montenegro? Montenegro proclaimed independence in 2006, but the language
(Montenegrin) has not been codified yet. The National Library would like
to receive from you a language code to be used temporarily until the
language is officially named and codified at which point we would
request a new language code. The Serbian and Croatian languages were
recently awarded their language codes.
Thank you so much for your time and understanding.
With best wishes,
Vesna Vuckovic
National Library of Montenegro


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.13/1825 - Release Date: 02/12/2008
20:44
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.13/1827 - Release Date: 03/12/2008
17:41
 

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