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]>
03/15/2007
02:45 PM
|
|
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 H�vard 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.
H�vard
--------------------
H�vard
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/
**************************************