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  June 2012

ISOJAC June 2012

Subject:

ISO 639

From:

Gérard Lang-Marconnet <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:25 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (205 lines)

Dear Havard,
Dear All,
Hoping to close this point, and in confirmation of my position concerning your point A, the following exchange shows:
(i) On Tuesday 12 June 20011 (so clearly after March 2011), Debbie Garside writes to the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee: " From discussions I had during the ISO TC 37 meeting in Korea, it appears that I should be a voting member. I believe I am still listed as an observer. I would be grateful if someone could update my status on the list and include me in the ballots." 
(ii) As nobody commented, adhered, objected or confirmed this message, I wrote in the point 2 of my message to the JAC list, dated 7 december 2011, that the inclusion of a representative of the ISO 639-6/RA as a voting member within the composition of the ISO 639/RA-JAC was simply not possible, without a joint revision of ISO 639-6 and ISO 639-4.
(ii) As nobody ever commented or objected to my message, I clearly conclude that It was accepted, so that the ISO 639-6/RA is not a voting member within the ISO 639/RA-JAC until a joint revision of ISO 639-4 and ISO 639-6.
Bien cordialement.
Gérard Lang
Le 7 déc. 2011 à 09:46, Gérard Lang-Marconnet a écrit :

> Dear All,
> 
> 0-I am really delighted that we have a new occasion to create code elements concerning the language name "Montenegrin/monténegrin" inside ISO 639.
> Moreover, the present message gives me the occasion to answer simultaneously to both questions included inside the preceding message.
> 
> 1-I am more than fully on the same line that Debbie Garside concerning the language name "Montenegin/Monténegrin". It is every day more evident that your (our ?) preceding NEGATIVE vote concerning the creation of the alpha-2 ISO 639-1 code element "me"  concerning this language name, having official status in the UN member state MONTENEGRO/MONTENEGRO, is generally considered as ridiculous, when we have alpha-2 code elements like "sr" (and also [scc], srp), "hr" (and also [scr], hrv) , "bs" (and also bos) for three others language names derived from the old generic "sh" Serbo-Croatian language name, all three having official status in the respective UN member states SERBIA/SERBIE, CROATIA/CROATIE and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE.  It  also  seems that Montenegrin is somewhat  more distinct of Serbian than Bosnian.
> So, I have a POSITIVE vote concerning the creation of an alpha-2 ISO 639-1 code element ( it seems that "me" is the best possible choice) and also an alpha-3 ISO 639-3 code element (it seems that "mno" is a possible choice) for the language name "Montenegrin/monténegrin".
> 
> 2-On another side I can absolutely not agree with Debbie's proposition to become a voting member inside our ISO 639/RA-JAC.
> The essential aim of the JAC is to apply the normative texts of the 6 voted parts of ISO 639, notably the clauses relative to the ISO 639/RA-JAC. These causes are:
> -Annex A.3 of ISO 639-1;
> -Annex A.3 of ISO 639-2;
> -Annex A.1.2 and A.1.3 of ISO 639-3;
> -Annex A.2 of ISO 639-4;
> -Annex B.1.3 and B.1.4 of ISO 639-6.
> And the normative clauses of ISO 639 on this point are very clear and precise.Particularly  Annex B.1.3 and B.1.4 of ISO 639-6:2009 do absolutely not modify the composition of the ISO 639/RA-JAC by introducing inside this composition a new member, representative of the ISO 639-6/RA. This is also clearly resulting of the text of Annex 2.1 of ISO 639-4:2010 that is posterior to the publication of part 6. So, as long as these normative texts are in vigor, that is always today's case as far as I know, the ISO 639/RA-JAC composition has 9 members as follows:
> -A representant for ISO 639-1 RA: Christian GALINSKY;
> -A representative of ISO 639-2 (and-5) RA: Did the library of Congress nominate a successor for Rebecca GUENTHER ?
> -A representative of ISO 639-3 RA: Melinda LYONS;
> -Three representatives of ISO TC 37: Gerhard BUDIN, Peter CONSTABLE, Margaret STEWART;
> -Three representatives of TC 46: Gérard LANG, Eeva MURTOMAA and  Glenn PATTON.
> 
> Both TC 37 and TC 46 may nominate substitute representative (François DEMAY is nominated as substitute for me).
> No other person can vote inside the JAC. ISO 639, and specially part 6, are explicit on the fact that no representative of ISO 639-6 RA is member of the ISO 639/RA-JAC.
> So that Debbie Garside, that is neither a direct JAC member, nor (as far as i know) a substitute member, but only one of the (up to) 5 technical experts that are non-voting observers of the JAC (What is the official today's list of technical experts ?. Let me remind that I proposed the nomination of David DALBY, that is one of the best specialists of these questions, and whose works are in the bibliography of three (4,5 and 6) parts of ISO 639, that is a unique case in this perspective, as one of these technical experts), cannot be today considered as one of the 9 voting JAC member.
> Even if I am happy to see that Debbie Garside's position on the point relative to montenegrin is in the same orientation that the mine, I am obliged to consider that her message is only the position of  an ISO 639 technical expert (exactly the same as for Michael Everson's position) and cannot be considered as a vote inside the JAC procedures.
> 
> 3-Moreover, let me add the following remark concerning voting procedure inside the JAC. In my opinion, we should be stricly conform with the procedures described in the text of Annexes of ISO 639 I listed in my point 2-; so that every vote inside the JAC  should be opened by the JAC president (as far as I know, Christian GALINSKY is today's president, for two years, as rotative president  representing ISO 639-1, after  the rotative presidency of Rebecca GUENTHER, representing ISO 639-2) or maybe by the JAC secretary ( I understand that Havard HJULSTAD  is still in charge ?).
> The main rules are that every JAC member has a vote (voting is mandatory), and must vote within one month after the opening of the vote, and that a second vote (with the same procedures) is necessary in the case that the first vote is not unanimous (i.e.: At least 5 POSITIVE votes, and no NEGATIVE vote).
> 
> Bien cordialement.
> Gérard Lang
> 
> Le 2 déc. 2011 à 21:58, Debbie Garside a écrit :
> 
>> I think it should be included in ISO 639-3.
>> ) 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Debbie
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ISO639-3 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>> Sent: 02 December 2011 20:02
>> To: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee; Debbie Garside
>> Subject: Re: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>> 
>> Dear JAC members,
>> 
>> I have had yet another request to add Montenegrin to the ISO 639. Do any of you have thoughts about reconsidering the status of Montenegrin?
>> 
>> Melinda Lyons
>> ISO 639-3 RA
>> SIL International
>> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
>> Dallas, TX 75236
>> 
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:39:48 +0100
>> Debbie Garside <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> From discussions I had during the ISO TC37 meetings in Korea, it appears that I should be a voting member.  I believe I am still listed as an observer.  I would be grateful if someone could update my status on the list and include me In any  ballots.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best wishes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Debbie.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
>>> Sent: 12 July 2011 08:54
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: SV: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear members of the JAC,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just briefly the “history”:
>>> 
>>> The first ballot was initiated on 2010-04-30 and closed on 2010-05-28. There was a clear majority against including Montenegrin in ISO 639-1 and in ISO 639-2.
>>> 
>>> Our rule is that if the first ballot isn’t unanimous, a second ballot is initiated, in which the majority decides. Since the majority in this case was against the inclusion, there probably shouldn’t be a need for a second ballot (since “unanimously against” and “majority against” amount to the same thing).
>>> 
>>> Nevertheless, the second ballot was initiated on 2010-06-09 with a closing data 2010-06-25. I see now in my records that on 2010-07-07 one voting member still hadn’t cast a vote, and technically that vote hasn’t been concluded. However, regardless how that last voter would have voted, a clear majority would have been against the inclusion.
>>> 
>>> I could/should have closed the ballot on or shortly after 2010-07-07 and publicized the result. That was an omission on my part; sorry. I have noted in the database that 2011-07-12 is the “date of publication of final result”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, in the current situation in Balkan I would not be surprised if there were to be a need to reconsider the “Serbo-Croatian languages” (or “Yugoslavian languages”). There were also comments suggesting that during the ballots. This may become an interesting test of the balance between purely linguistic criteria and language policy (or political) criteria. We have been balancing before, but I am not sure that we have been confronted with issues that are similar enough to be used as “template”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The issue of an alpha-2 identifier has been raised (and will be raised again). In this particular case we would be “allowed to” assign an alpha-2 identifier at the same time as we assign an alpha-3 identifier, without breaking any of our rules and promises.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The JAC hasn’t really discussed whether there should be a “quarantine” period for items that have once been rejected. One year seems to be a rather short period, but there may be good reasons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am acting here purely as JAC secretary, i.e. I don’t have an opinion about “accept” or “reject”. I am just mapping the “battle field” or “sand box”. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Håvard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> Håvard Hjulstad
>>> 
>>> prosjektleder / Project Manager
>>> 
>>> Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>>> 
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> http://www.standard.no/
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>>  Tenk på miljøet før du skriver ut denne e-posten. / Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av ISO639-3
>>> Sendt: 11. juli 2011 22:22
>>> Til: [log in to unmask]
>>> Emne: Re: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Members of the JAC,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have had another request to assign a code to Montenegrin. I have looked through the various files of the ISO639-3 account, and the last thing I have are some messages marked "Montenegrin--second ballot soon". I cannot find the final result. Could someone let me know what the result of the second ballot was (I assume it happened in July or August of 2010, after Joan was no longer actively doing ISO 639-3).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for your help. I will need to answer the new request.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Melinda Lyons 
>>> 
>>> ISO 639-3 RA
>>> 
>>> SIL International
>>> 
>>> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
>>> 
>>> Dallas, TX 75236
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:04:13 +0200
>>> 
>>> Michael Everson < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jun 2010, at 08:13, Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> I expect that all relevant information relating to the issue of encoding Montenegrin in ISO 639 has by now been presented. A second ballot will be circulated tomorrow morning. Any remaining input should be submitted by the end of this day.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> My input: Sufficient evidence has not been adduced to indicate that "Montenegrin" is other than a synonym for Serbian. "Unreliable" discussion in the English Wikipedia article suggests the same, and moreover indicates that the taxonomy is controversial in Montenegro itself.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Had I a vote, I would vote not to add a separate code for Montenegrin at this time.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Michael Everson *  <http://www.evertype.com/> http://www.evertype.com/
>>> 
> 

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