Criteria for languages?

[Peter Constable]

The issue with Latvian is this: a case has been made that Latgalian should be deemed a distinct language from the standardized Latvian variety (let's call that "Standard Latvian"). If accepted, then one must choose what to do with the existing entry, lav "Latvian", keeping in mind the impact on existing documents and implementations. The options are:

1. deprecate lav; add new individual-language entries for Latgalian and "Standard Latvian"

2. add a new individual-language entry for Latgalian; deem lav to be an individual-language entry denoting "Standard Latvian"

3. add new individual-language entries for Latgalian, "Standard Latvian"; continue to deem lav as encompassing both of these—which requires the scope to be change to M or C, and since lav has been broadly treated as an individual-language entry go with M

Both 1 and 2 would have undesirable impacts on existing data and implementations, so 3 would be preferable.

Of course, if the request to deem Latgalian a distinct language were rejected, then all of this would be moot: none of these changes would be made. But if there are reasonable grounds for the request, then it is quite appropriate for the RA to accept it, and some follow-on actions become necessary.


Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:20 AM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?

Mark Davis ? <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

> B. The criteria for macrolanguages are also very murky to me. Take the 
> two cases:
>
> a. Latvian was changed to a macrolanguage, and what was formerly 
> considered Latvian is titled Standard Latvian
>
> b. Swiss German was not changed to a macrolanguage; instead, 
> Walliserdeutsch is no longer considered Swiss German.
>
> Could someone clarify why the choice is made one way in one case, and 
> another way in the other case?

Well, the choice hasn't been made yet by ISO 639-3/RA, at least as far as we know; these are just proposals so far.  We'll have to wait until the decisions are published, or possibly get an early heads-up from Joan.

Basically, in order to claim that Latvian should be a macrolanguage, the requester needs to show that it is sometimes appropriate to speak of Standard Latvian and Latgalian as separate languages, and sometimes to speak of them as a single language called "Latvian."  Likewise for Standard Lithuanian, Samogitian, and "Lithuanian."  I get the feeling people still really don't understand what a macrolanguage is supposed to be, and think it is another name for a collection.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages