Print

Print


Thanks for comments, Peter.

In the meantime, I have been corresponding with the requester. He asked, 
basically, what are the issues? This was my summary of them for him (just 
for the record here, not for new knowledge to this group):

If the macrolanguage approach is chosen, and approved, there is one issue:
The existing [lav] code element will remain, and will continue to include 
both Latvian proper and Latgalian within its scope of meaning, as a 
macrolanguage. Because of this, the new code element created to denote 
Latvian more strictly ("Standard Latvian" might be too strict, or might be 
appropriate.) will likely get used very little. The drawback is that there 
will be two code elements that overlap to a very high degree, and the 
[lav] code will still be used in most cases, even if the more specific new 
code for Standard Latvian is actually more appropriate. The majority of 
users coding anything (within software, on a webpage, in a library 
catalog, etc.) will continue to use the more widely known code, except 
where they really do want to identify Latgalian specifically.

If the other approach, just creating a new code element for Latgalian, is 
chosen, there are two issues:
1. There will be an unknown proportion of uses of [lav] where the code 
really should be for Latgalian, but there will be no overt mechanism to 
encourage system managers to look for and update those instances. This is 
an issue in general systems with lots of retrospective data, like large 
library catalogs. We expect the proportion to be relatively small (the 
Library of Congress did a quick assessment and estimated it to affect less 
than 0.5% of [lav] coded works). Another mitigating factor is that 
creators of both resources and systems (including websites) specifically 
targeting Latgalian materials will be early, intentional adopters of the 
new code element, making the change from the 'inadequate' [lav] code 
element to the new one.
2. The larger sociolinguistic and historical connection between the two 
language varieties would not be reflected in the standard. This means that 
for contexts where Latvian and Latgalian really ought to be considered 
"one language", there will be no proper means of expressing that. This may 
be most relevant for historical materials.

...

I sent this message last week, and he has not yet replied. We have 
basically the same issue with Estonian now, as well. In a world where many 
applications of a given code element will never be reviewed and updated, 
we will always have to deal with these matters. I don't see this changing 
until all the parts work together on a wholly different basis (and maybe 
not then, either). The cost of updating is much higher and more direct to 
managers of materials than is the cost of ambiguity, which is distributed, 
and borne more by users of resources. The cost of not changing at all is 
borne by those not served by the current system, largely creators and 
users.

The macrolanguage solution also has the merit of tying the creation of the 
Latgalian code element to the [lav] code at a referenceable point in time, 
even if the proposed change is not fully adopted (i.e. the macrolanguage 
aspect is rejected), as was the case with Khasi and Lyngngam 
(http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/chg_detail.asp?id=2007-064 ). In that case, 
at least there is a formal record of Lyngngam being associated with Khasi 
prior to the creation of the new code element.

Livonian need not be at issue here at all. It is considered to be within 
Finno-Ugrian languages [fiu] in Part 2. Being Uralic/Baltic-Finnic, it is 
classed closer to Estonian than to Latvian, which is Indo-European/Baltic, 
though Latvian has had significant influence on it. (Michael just said 
some of this, too.)

-Joan




Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
2009-06-29 12:55 PM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: Inclusion of Latgalian language in ISO639






Sorry for not replying sooner.
 
An important consideration: if the scope of lav is changed to 
macrolanguage and an entity is created and mapped as being encompassed by 
lav, then what of Livonian and (more importantly) Standard Latvian? Would 
liv be encompassed by lav, and would we create an new entity for Standard 
Latvian? It seems that at least the latter would be necessary. But then 
that would create issues for Latvian resources: there would be confusion 
about whether lav or the new ID should be used. (This is the same issue 
that has existed with zh and cmn for Chinese / Mandarin, and it�s a pain.)
 
The down side to the first option would be that some of the existing uses 
of lav are for Latgalian. I don�t know how likely that would be. We do 
know, though, that there�s a fair amount of usage of lav for Standard 
Latvian, and that�s what would be impacted by the second option. 
 
So, I lean toward the first option, though that�s assuming that there is 
very little or no usage of lav for Latgalian.
 
 
Peter
 
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: Inclusion of Latgalian language in ISO639
 

Hello All, 

Lucas gave helpful information wrt the very small percentage of [lav] that 
appears to be more specifically Latgalian in the Library of Congress (and 
even smaller proportion known to be Samogitian--though that actually 
relates to Lithuanian, not Latvian). That would indicate that separating 
Latgalian from Latvian without a split or a change to [lav] to the scope 
of macrolanguage would be acceptable. 

However, I would like to forward this note from one of the two distinct 
requesters, and ask the thoughts of the JAC specifically on the question 
of which is approach is preferred by the JAC: 
1.      simply allowing the creation of a separate code element for 
Latgalian in Part 3, with no change to [lav] 
2.      change [lav] to a macrolanguage, with the constituents of Standard 
Latvian and Latgalian.

The requester has noted the decision made in the 2009 series of changes 
for ISO 639-3 with regard to Estonian, and sees it as a good pattern to 
follow. He also supplies some additional information on development 
movements. 

Thanks in advance for considering and responding. 

Joan 



----- Forwarded by Joan Spanne/IntlAdmin/WCT on 2009-06-05 09:23 AM ----- 

Jancs <[log in to unmask]> 
2009-05-29 04:06 AM 


To
[log in to unmask] 
cc

Subject
Re: Inclusion of Latgalian language in ISO639
 








Dear Joan,

Quoting [log in to unmask]:

> Hello Janis,
>
> Another individual has initiated a request to add Latgalian to the ISO
> 639-3 standard. Thank you for the additional information you supply. I
> anticipate I will be able to post more information on that request to 
the
> ISO 639-3 website within the next few weeks. It is a complex situation
> because of the relationship to Latvian.

I'd like to add some more information on the subject:

a week ago I submitted an initiative document regarding this problem 
to the States Language commission (SLC) of Latvia. Knowing from whom 
came the first initiative could be helpful to unite the efforts and 
get academic support for the issue. As far as i know, this initiative 
does not comes from the memebers of SLC as the person (professor 
A.Stafecka) in lead of Latgalian grammar subcommission was absolutely 
unaware about it and actually encouraged me to write respective letter 
to SLC).

Yes, I agree that the process could be not easy. As I see it at the 
moment is that the Latvian should be changed to macro language (as out 
neighbours - Estonian) and added Latgalian as the sub-language (also - 
like in the case with Estonian and Voro). That example showed that the 
intitiative group of Voro changed the est status and succeeded in 
introduction of Voro.

Sincerely -

Janis Eisaks

> Jancs <[log in to unmask]>
> 2009-05-20 02:51 AM
>
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Inclusion of Latgalian language in ISO639
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear sirs,
>
> I am working at the development of the spellckecking tools for Latvian
> language and, as I feel the main part of the work is comming to an
> end, I wanted to do the same for my mother tongue - Latgalian (I am
> Latgalian speaking and writing).
>
> My work can be seen at http://dict.dv.lv, where both projects -
> Latvian and Latgalian - are listed.
>
> Unfortunately, it is not possible to use Latgalian as the document
> language, because it is not listed in respective international
> standards (ISO639-3 particularly), only mentioned in ISO639-2 as the
> member of Baltic language group, which does not help to solve the
> issue with spellchecker's identification.
>
> Can you tell me what procedure must be followed to initiate an
> inclusion of Latgalian language in the standard??
>
> To give some more information on language for more info please see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latgalian_language
> http://www.geocities.com/latgalian/
> http://www.casadelest.org/foro/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=947
>
> Sincerely yours -
> Janis Eisaks
>
> http://dict.dv.lv
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
> X-Quarantine ID /var/spool/MD-Quarantine/03/qdir-2009-05-20-03.59.47-001
>
>



-- 
Lobs cylv�ks

V�� 243 miene�i da pensejis

http://dict.dv.lv
http://tehvi.dv.lv

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


X-Quarantine ID  /var/spool/MD-Quarantine/05/qdir-2009-05-29-05.07.05-001