Print

Print


Actually I think a ballot should be requested and processed.  This is a
major change in terms of 639-2 as it affects the MARC standard.

Milicent Wewerka

>>> Håvard  Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 03/28/07 7:05 AM >>>
Peter & Joan (and all),
 
Hoping that any JAC member that would have a problem with this, I would
say:
- no ballot needed;
- go ahead as suggested.
 
Håvard
 
--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
  Standard Norge / Standards Norway
  [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
--------------------
 

________________________________

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can
settle this now



Havard: Do you think we need ballots to process new entries or name
changes for Aramaic varieties mentioned in Joan's mail, below?

 

 

Peter

 

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 

Thanks, Milicent & Joan, for comments. My immediate concern is to get
closure on the issues. There's just a handful more to introduce, but I
don't want to open new issues while we still have some that have been
open for weeks now and need closure.

 

Both Joan & Millicent are saying that this committee needs to process
these Aramaic additions, and there are name adjustments to be made as
well. Havard, do you think you should create ballots for these?

 

 

Peter

 

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 


I agree with Milicent with regard to code elements that either clearly
affect the denotation or reference information of a Part 2 code element,
or might border on having an affect. The Aramaic languages with
proposals for Part 3 come under that second grouping as being involved
in the clarification of intended meaning for code elements in Part 2.
Some of them may also be of interest for including in Part 2, which is
also justification for inviting JAC consideration. 

There are dozens of new code requests in Part 3 that I would say have
no immediate impact on Part 2, and I had not planned on bringing them to
the JAC, unless you all state otherwise now. One other motivation for
requesting JAC consideration of Part 3 change requests is if there is
division regard in expressed public opinion on a change request. 

-Joan 




Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 

03/15/2007 02:45 PM 

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

To

[log in to unmask] 

cc

	
Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

 

		




I think it would be wise to include 639-3 changes or additions in a
process that includes in JAC.  Decisions on 639-3 have an impact on
639-2 certainly in terms of scope of the definition of the languages.

Milicent Wewerka
Library of Congress

>>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 03/15/07 3:06 PM >>>
None of the parts of ISO 639 * 1, 2 or 3 * actually specify any
process for additions or changes other than the following:

-         the request must be supported by a justification
-         the JAC must provide a response to the RA within one month

Each part does specify voting procedures, but doesn*t clearly state
what JAC actions require a vote.

Perhaps you*re assuming SIL will independently decide about additions
to 639-3, while Joan is assuming the JAC will somehow be involved? (I
realize as editor for 639-3 one might expect I*d know what the process
is, but I just used existing text from parts 1/2.)


Peter

________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now

New items in 639-3 should be processed according to the rules of
639-3.
If any if these items should be considered for 639-2, that would need
to
be processed after 639-3 registration.

Håvard

--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
 Standard Norge / Standards Norway
 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--------------------


________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
Thanks.

So, we need others to chime in on whether they agree with the general
plan. And we have some new entries for part 3 and possible part 2 to
consider * I don*t know how we need to process those. Havard?


Peter

________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now


A summary of actions needed to adopt:

[oar] Old Aramaic (639-3)
Part 3: Change name to add dates: Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE);
additional name: Ancient Aramaic  (up to 700 BCE)
[include dates in all name forms?]
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2


[arc] Aramaic (639-2 and 639-3)
Part 2 and Part 3: Change name to Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE);
additional name: Imperial Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE)
change French name(s) as needed


A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
639-3:
[avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.
Considering the general lack of extant documents of this period, 639-2
may not have need of it.


[tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (639-3)
Part 3: change name back to earlier draft designation (from
Ethnologue)
and add dates: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.


A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
639-3:
[jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
This is the variety of Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan, as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.
Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2



Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

03/12/2007 11:46 AM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>


To

[log in to unmask] 

cc



Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now










This looks good to me.



Joan, can you summarize exactly what actions are needed to adopt?





Peter



________________________________

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Cc: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Fw: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now



Hello All,

After some research and a round of discussion on Aramaic with Anthony
Aristar, this is what we propose:

> [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
Aramaic
> PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE) CHANGE NAME BACK TO
ETHNOLOGUE DESIGNATION: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
>
> (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
only
4
> total available [m--]
> [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
confused
> as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- but
it
is
> already assigned.)
>In addition:
> PROPOSED code element: [jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca.
200-1200
CE)
> to designate the Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan,
> as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.

The return of [tmr] to the specific designation of Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic is significant because to consider a single "Talmudic Aramaic"
really would be proposing a collection (which we do not want to do),
as
the Aramaic languages of the 4th period (as listed here) are
definitely
distinct languages and are well attested. Classical Syriac and
Classical
Mandaic are others in this bunch that have their own code elements
already (and are not affected by this proposal).

Have a great week,

Joan

----- Forwarded by Joan Spanne/IntlAdmin/WCT on 03/12/2007 10:01 AM
-----
Anthony Aristar <[log in to unmask]>

03/09/2007 12:43 PM


To

[log in to unmask] 

cc



Subject

Re: 639 issues: Aramaic













You are precisely accurate, Joan.  Up to around 200 AD the varieties
of
Aramaic were similar enough at each time-period to be called dialects.
But then the divergence of dialects which diachronic change naturally
brings about, accompanied by the sharp political division between the
Roman Empire and the Parthian (and later Persion) Empires, started to
bring about such substantial changes that it becomes more reasonable
to
talk about distinct languages forming in different regions at the same
time.   It shouldn't have a single code, unless this code is clearly a
collection.

If the code-set is to be used in a scholarly fashion, keep the
Ethnologue designation Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and add at least one
more code for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, to designate the Aramaic
found in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, as well as the
Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim, which is closely related to the
Onkelos/Jonathan dialect.  Talmudic Aramaic is emphatically a
collection, and is not written in a single language: we require at
least two language codes here, one the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
mentioned here, and the other the Aramaic found in the Babylonian
Talmud. And the idea that the Talmudic material of the early period is
somehow the "same" as the material from almost a 1000 years later...

This is a very strange process, isn't it?

Anthony

Quoting [log in to unmask]: 

> Hi Anthony and Peter,
>
> I am trying to nail down the Aramaic situation for a concrete
proposal to
> the JAC. I have one remaining problem, which has not really come up
> explicitly yet, but I am concerned it will eventually.
>
> In a simple world, I would propose:
> [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
Aramaic
> PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
>
> (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
only
4
> total available [m--]
> [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
confused
> as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- which
is
> already assigned.)
>
> However, with my gift for making simple things complex, I am
bothered
by
> the last entry:
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> which in the Ethnologue is called Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.
>
> My limited research tells me that this 4th period in the history of
the
> Aramaic languages is not as uniform as the 1st and 2nd (nor is
Middle
> Aramaic, but it has far less extant material and therefore no
settled
> designations). The 4th period may be divided between Eastern and
Western
> groups. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (the Ethnologue designation of
[tmr]) is
> a member of the Eastern group. Now we are proposing that [tmr]
encompasses
> more than that variety. The reason this bothers me is that [syc]
Classical
> Syriac and [myz] Classical Mandaic are the other two members of this
> Eastern Group, but they both still have their own identifiers. So
also
> does Samaritan Aramaic of the Western group.
>
> I think it would be more sensible to retain the Ethnologue
designation
> Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and possibly add appropriate code elements
other
> members of the Western group (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and
> Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic), if warranted.
>
> As it is in the simple proposal, Talmudic Aramaic looks more like a
> collection to me. You know this topic far better than I, Anthony. Am
I off
> base with my concern?
>
> -Joan



             **************************************
Anthony Aristar, Director, Institute for Language Information &
Technology
                Professor of Linguistics
Moderator, LINGUIST               Principal Investigator, EMELD
Project
Linguistics Program
Dept. of English                  [log in to unmask] 
Eastern Michigan University            2000 Huron River Dr, Suite 104
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
U.S.A.

URL: http://linguistlist.org/aristar/ 
             **************************************