Print

Print


I am not sure what you mean by this. Names must be listed alphabetically
for anyone to find something by language name. The entry is listed in
multiple places (alphabetically) if there are multiple names associated
with it.

In the absence of rules, we are listing the names according to how they
were initially established, when alternative names are added later. When
this isn't the case, I suppose it is alphabetically. When people can argue
about which should come first, it may actually be better to list
alphabetically so that there isn't disagreement about the
"preferred" name. 

If you think that something needs to be changed in terms of order of
names, let's discuss that.

Rebecca

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Christian Galinski wrote:

> Pls do not list the names alphabetically - which may work in many cases, but
> might be most inappropriate in others.
> WE NEED RULES FOR THE SEQUENCE OF LANGUAGE NAMES DISPLAYED TO THE USER
> (TOGETHER WITH QUALIFIERS) ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED CRITERIA! 
> 
> ...enjoyable holidays and a good start into 2007
> Christian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006 22:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: (iso639.2308) RE: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
> 
> When we list the language name alphabetially "Alemannic" would come first in
> one place (the list by language name). Where we list the code we can change
> it.
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Constable wrote:
> 
> > For all of 639, I think the English spelling should be changed to 
> > "Alemannic" (two 'n's). (Several comments have been made about the 
> > "typo in Ethnologue" -- which is the source for Karen Broome 
> > requesting "Alemanic".)
> > 
> > For 639-2 in particular, perhaps reversing the order of English names to
> "Swiss German; Alemannic" would be better. The discussion seems to point to
> two pertinent points:
> > 
> > - "Alemannisch" is a (Germanic) name used in relation to at least some 
> > dialects of this language
> > - "Swiss German" / "SchwyzerdŁtch" is strongly associated with 
> > speakers in Switzerland
> > 
> > Thus, I think I'd be reluctant to remove "Alemannic" as an English name
> entirely; but reversing the order might decrease the likelihood that an
> English speaker gets the impression that this refers to the entire Alemannic
> branch of Germanic.
> > 
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> > > Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:33 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: (iso639.2308) RE: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
> > > 
> > > Sorry, all, I wrote my message before I read this one.
> > > 
> > > We don't currently have a way to give more information about a 
> > > language name, as Peter suggested. We will need to make links to the 
> > > 639-3 site for more information.
> > > 
> > > Rebecca
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The main concern is to clarify that "gsw" is intended to denote a 
> > > > range of varieties
> > > deemed to be a single language (one that has the name, among others, 
> > > "Swiss
> > > German") and not a broader range of varieties that would be deemed 
> > > multiple languages (including Swabian and Walser as well as Swiss
> German).
> > > >
> > > > The user concern that has been expressed is that "Alemani[c]; Swiss
> German"
> > > suggests that "gsw" can be used to mean two different things:
> > > >
> > > > A)      the collection of Alemannic languages (Swabian, Swiss
> German...), and also
> > > > B)      the individual language Swiss German (whichever name may be
> used to refer
> > > to it)
> > > >
> > > > Our intention is not that "gsw" can be used with a single meaning 
> > > > which is A, or
> > > that it can be used with two different meanings A and B. We intend it to
> mean just B.
> > > The only problem is that one of the English names used for B is the 
> > > common English name for A.
> > > >
> > > > I think the particular thing that led to this user comment was 
> > > > that, in the machine-
> > > readable file for 639-3 that contains the code set, Joan had picked 
> > > "Alemanic" as the reference name; he saw that, but apparently did 
> > > not also look at file containing alternate names (at one point that 
> > > user did comment that "listing Alemanic as the only name" is a problem).
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem can be resolved by the following:
> > > >
> > > > -         Having Joan change the reference name to "Swiss German" (or
> > > "SchwyzerdŁtsch", for that matter). The reference name is never the 
> > > complete story, but to the extent that it gives a first-pass 
> > > impression "Swiss German" doesn't have the ambiguity that "Alemannic"
> does, and so I think it may be preferable.
> > > > -         Communicating that the reference name alone may not always
> be sufficient
> > > to convey to users the intended meaning of the identifier. (Joan 
> > > could add that statement to the page on the 639-3 site where the 
> > > data files can be downloaded.)
> > > > -         Ideally, we would also have info with the gsw entry
> > > clarifying that the use of "Alemannic" is not intended to imply 
> > > meaning A (above). On the 639-3 site, there are a couple of things 
> > > that help: the entry indicates that it has a scope of individual 
> > > language, not collection; and the more-information page for the 
> > > entry has a link to the Ethnologue data describing the item in 
> > > greater detail. At present, ISO 639-2 doesn't have any means of
> conveying additional information on individual entries, though.
> > > 
> > > > Peter
> > 
>