 |
 |
Sorry for my confusion on Livonian.
Ambiguity may not be costly, though in some cases it can be.
Consider the situation with zh: There is a large body of usage
in which zh is used to mean Mandarin, but there are also clear cases in which zh
is used in relation to other Chinese languages. For that reason, we deemed zh
to be a macrolanguage encompassing IDs for Mandarin – cmn – and other specific Chinese
languages. So, now implementations have IDs that can be used to distinguish
(say) Mandarin (cmn) vs. Cantonese (yue). However, there will also be problems
in managing the relationship between these specific IDs and all the existing
usage of zh. It is that additional problem that can be costly.
So, if Latgalian is only ever of marginal interest except in
certain limited application scenarios, then most applications may be able to
continue using lav for Standard Latvian resources and never have to worry about
how to relate lav with IDs for the more specific varieties, in which case the ambiguity
introduced with the macrolanguage option will not be significant. If that ever
changes, though, the macrolanguage option will entail costs for implementations
in some larger degree.
Peter
From: ISO 639 Joint
Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Inclusion of Latgalian language in ISO639
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]> 2009-06-29
12:55 PM
|
|
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 |
|
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 cylvâks
Vçï 243 mieneði 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