In reviewing the information gathered so far, there are the following issues concerning the definition of Low German as a language in ISO 639. Since the request was only to define in ISO 639-2 that is what we are considering. 1. Low German as dialect or as separate language If we consider Low German against the proposed list of criteria to establish a separate language code for a dialect, we could say: definitely yes to 1, 5, and 7. For 2, the name is somewhat distinctive, although the term is used for the dialects of Germany as well as the wider grouping of West Germanic languages that includes Dutch and English. The latter usage is in contrast with the High German dialects. We have no information on standardization or educational status. It does seem to have a tradition of literary usage, and there is a radio station in Germany that broadcasts in Low German. It seems to satisfy at least 4 of the criteria. The criteria distributed yesterday: These are suggestions for evaluating the merit of including a separate language code for a dialect. 1) Does the required number of documents exist? (This is, of course, mandatory) 2) Does the dialect have a distinctive name? A name such as Parisian French isn't particularly distinctive, being based on the combination of a place name with the name of the language. 3) Does the dialect have a degree of standardization, such as a consistent orthography? 4) Is the dialect taught separately in schools? 5) Is there significant variation from the standard language? 6) Is the dialect sometimes considered a separate language? 7) Is there a tradition of literary usage or is the dialect used in media such as radio, motion pictures, television? The more "yes" answers that occur for a dialect, the more likely it is that a separate code would be useful. (I do realize that Sten made some thoughtful comments about these yesterday that I am thinking about.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. What code to assign. According to working principles in: http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/iso639jac_n3r.html: * An effort is made to derive a language code from a language's name for itself, when possible. For historical reasons, some codes may be based on the name of a language in English. * New language codes shall be based on the vernacular form of name unless - another language code is requested by the country or countries using the language or the sponsor submitting the request; - if the vernacular cannot be determined; or - if a suitable code is not available In this case, there is some evidence that Low Saxon and Low German are the same language. If these are the same, our sources at the Library of Congress primarily use Low German; we also don't feel certain that they are the same. In any case, it is not clear what the vernacular name of Low Saxon is (Neddersassisch or Nedersaksisch in Ethnologue?). The vernacular for Low German seems to be Plattduutsch (umlauts over each "u") with varying other spellings in other places (e.g. Mennonite German is Plautdietsch; also saw Plattduetsche). It seems also to be spoken in other places, such as the U.S., Latin America, Canada, Russia, etc. The submitter of the request did not represent the country using the language. He did suggest a code that had already been used, but said they could change to whatever we chose. The choices seem to be: - pld (based on Plattduutsch or some other variant) - sak (based on Saksysch? but we aren't sure that these are the same and the request was for Low German) - nds (based on Nedersksisch or other variant; same comment as above) - gml (based on German, Low; proposed code by submitter) I think we should use a vernacular form; I'm not sure that we have one for "Low Saxon". To me it is still questionable whether Low German or Low Saxon are the same (Ethnologie considers them separate). My proposal is to conduct the vote to include the following entry (using the technique of giving a variant following a semicolon): pld Low German; German, Low pld German, Low; Low German Please comment. I would like to send out the vote by next week. I do hope that all of you on the JAC who have not participated in this discussion will vote. Rebecca