 |
 |
At 12:19 +0100 2001-11-29, Trond Trosterud wrote: >On form: > >Klaas has come up with this proposal, and with reasons for not using >indigenous codes: > >0. Northern Sámi: sme >1. Lule Sámi: julev(u)sámegiella smj >2. Southern Sámi: lullisámegiella sml >3. Inari Sámi: anáras<sámegiella sma >4. Skolt Sámi: nuortalas<sámegiella smn >5. Kildin Sámi: gielddasámegiella smg > >In order not to confuse "sml" with Lule Sámi, I would prefer > >2. Southern Sámi: máttesámegiella smm > >These two names for south (lulli and mátta) are both in use in Northern Sámi. > >While extended intersámi contact will lead to distinctive indigenous names >(as the northern Sámi now call their lg "davvisámegiella" whenever there is >a ned to distinguish, I think this proposal is better than Håvard's, as it >is easier to distinguish the lgs from each other when one system (here: >Northern Sámi) is used to name them. > >Be this as it may, I find Håvard's proposal for 4 additions an 80 % hit, >and would like to include the 6th written lg as well. Compared to this, the >form of the tags is of less importance. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Trond Trosterud t +47 7764 4763 >Samisk institutt, Det humanistiske fakultet h +47 7767 3639 >N-9037 Universitetet i Tromsø, Noreg f +47 7764 4239 >[log in to unmask] http://www.hum.uit.no/a/trond/ >------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com