Dear Melinda,
Dear John,
Dear All,
I am afraid the following message raises many questions for me.
1/ Apparently this message is containing a vote concerning "zgh", because we have "Y" as answers; but who is voting there ? Is it Melinda, is it John, is it Sebastian, or is it nobody ?
2/ This message is apparently sent on the JACVOTE list by a person named Sebastian Drude. So, I must conclude that this person is on this list. Note that I have strictly nothing about this, as I stongly suspect that Sebastian is a JAC technical expert, but as it is the first time I am seing his name, I would like to have an official confirmation.
3/ I received on October 4th, just before the second vote on "zgh", two simultaneous messages from LISTSERV.GOV. LOC LISTSERV (You have been added to the JACVOTE list; Usage guidelines for JACVOTE). So, to verify that all was complete concerning TC 46, I sent a copy of the first message to Juha Hakala, Glenn Patton, François Demay, David Dalby and Elisabeth Porteneuve and asked them if they had received the same. It appears that François Demay, David Dalby and Elisabeth Porteneuve did not (Glenn Patton being absent).
4/ So that I (accompagnied by Mercé Ferres and Mary-Lou Pélaprat from the ISO Central Secretariat) feel obliged to ask for the fourth time since my compte rendu of the meeting in Berlin with Christian Galinsky in April 2012 for an urgent answer for the question:
"What is exactly the list of the persons (and their qualities) subscribed to the JACVOTE list (ISO JAC VOTING MEMBER LIST) and receiving the messages of this list ?".
Bien cordialement.
Gérard Lang
Le 5 oct. 2012 à 19:20, Sebastian Drude a écrit :
> I agree, with the French modification into the substantive (stand-alone) version without the final E.
> I do not really understand, though, why Tamazight is not chosen also for the French version; that seems to be the more common French name for the language, too.
> But I am new in this business and will not hold the process if I am the only one not to understand.
> Sebastian
>
> PD Dr. Sebastian Drude, Scientific Coordinator, The Language Archive
> Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics
> P.O. Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands
> Email: [log in to unmask], Phone: (+31) 24-3521.470
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO JAC Voting Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ISO639-3
> Sent: 04 October 2012 22:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [JACVOTE] Second Ballot on [zgh]
>
>
> Dear JAC voting members,
>
> Here is the second ballot for the code [zgh]. Please read the information below and on the attached file before casting your ballot.
> Please return this ballot by October 9th.:
>
> ____Y___ I accept the code [zgh] for the new national language of Morocco
>
>
> ________ I do not accept the code [zgh] for the new national language of Morocco
>
>
> For the standard names of the language:
>
> ____Y___ I accept that the code should be called "amazigh standard marocain" in French.
>
>
> ________ I do not accept that the code should be called "amazighe standard marocain" in French.
>
>
> Comments:
>
> Votes will be recorded and results tallied on October 12th.
>
>
> Melinda Lyons
> JAC Secretary
> ISO 639-3 RA
> SIL International
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
> Dallas, TX 75236
>
> Additional summary on the language code request:
>
>
> After further consultation with the our colleagues at Harvard and Yale, we have come to the conclusion that, in the previous JAC discussion concerning Amazigh, there is not anything new that we did not know before. Our research involving many sources (experts, books, databases, etc.) showed very clearly that the claim stated in the discussion that "amazigh" would also be a valid English name of the considered language could not be validated. Only the name "tamazight" is widely used and accepted in the English language. As we mentioned before, "Tamazight" is the term used for the Language and "Amazigh" is the term used for the People and that is the dominant usage that we find in the overwhelming majority of academic Berber ethnographic accounts and social anthropology studies of Amazigh people. Tamazight is the standard academically accepted terminology when referencing the language in English. On top of that, Morocco's Arabic-language constitution prefers the term "Tamaz!
> ight" over "Amazigh" in translation. To that end, we feel our original arguments that were posted to the JAC listserv were sound and that they should be carefully reconsidered. I am attaching our original arguments, as posted to the JAC listserv, to this email. We still feel strongly that the code should be called "Standard Moroccan Tamazight" in English and "amazighe standard marocain" in French.
>
> We have also, after further discussion, decided to draft a response as a result of the JAC discussion and vote that was held earlier this summer. Abdelaali Boutaqmanti (Middle Eastern Librarian at Harvard) drafted the response (see below) and we concur with his statements. He did mention that, were it needed, we might want to solicit support from researchers in Berber studies, but at this time, we feel the points have been well made, sources have been cited, and that doing so would drag this debate out even longer. Of course, if you think it is necessary, then we will proceed with further consultation.
>
> Thank you very much for your time and consideration. And please let me know if you need any further information.
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
> John Zagas
>
> ====================
> RESPONSE drafted by Abdelaali Boutaqmanti:
>
> Going back and scanning some the Berber titles, only confirmed our argument. I found out that term Tamazight is widely and consistently used. So it is clear that there is no dispute or ambivalent use of both Tamazight and Amazigh when referencing the language. When the term Amazigh is being used to indicate language, it is used in a combined form as "Amazigh language", which is to say the language of Amazigh people. Amazigh as stand alone is not used for the language, but for Berber people.
>
> To Peter Constable's point that we need to cite most recent sources, "past 2 years", and that any other literature prior to that is arguing Tamazight varieties prior to IRCAM standardization, not necessarily.
>
> First, the IRCAM standard Tamazight is more than 2 years old, it has been in use for some time now and been taught in schools in Morocco since September 2003. So English Berber literature produced since then can be used as sources, and one would assume that this literature must have been aware of the standardized IRCAM Tamazight as a reference point, unless specifically stated otherwise; second, besides David Hart and Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress's (1996) books, there is a good resource in Berber studies published in 2010, the latest one that I am aware of, the outcome of a two day workshop "Berbers and others: changing parameters of ethnicity in the contemporary Maghrib". Kathrine E. Hoffman, Susan Gilson Miller, Cynthier Becker's contributions, expressly used the term Tamazight to refer to the language and Amazigh to refer to the people.
>
> Not only that, but as we discussed before, the term Tamazigh has been making inroads into the French Berber literature: Salem Chaker as a case in point, who repeatedly uses the term Tamazight to refer to the language, and not any particular Tamazight variety:
>
> http://www.clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/pdf/pdf_langue_et_litterature_berberes.pdf
>
> http://www.centrederechercheberbere.fr/tl_files/doc-pdf/berbere.pdf
>
> Also there are numerous Web sites and online literature in English that consistently use the term Tamazight. If that can be of help.
>
> One more thing that we can try and do is to solicit support from some of the researchers in Berber studies, and enlist their support, since it was mentioned in Gerhard Budin's email.
>
> The language name in Tifinagh is listed as: Tamazight not Amazigh, and I think this provides a strong basis for using the English term Tamazight since it is the consistent form of Romanization that accurately represents the vernacular, and I think it was Peter Constable who made the same observation, so we might have his support on this point
>
> Ali
>
|