Criteria for languages?

Mark Davis ☕ mark at macchiato.com
Mon Nov 23 06:12:27 CET 2009


The issue I have is consistency. It appears that a different choice is being
taken with regard to Walliserdeutsch than with respect to Latgalian. There
appear to be no relevant differences between them in regard to the questions
you raise.

For that matter, if we go back in time, and not that long ago, there was
probably Low German and Swiss German content marked as German. Why is it not
appropriate to make German into a macrolanguage, with Standard German, Low
German, and Swiss German (among others) as encompassed languages?

Mark


On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 18:08, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>wrote:

> If you choose option 2 and there are Latgalian documents out there tagged
> as lav, then by narrowing the scope of lav to exclude Latgalian those
> documents immediately become _incorrectly tagged_ without warning to anyone
> that might be adversely impacted, and no particular way to discover the
> problem other than to inspect all documents tagged lav all over again to
> discover the minority that are incorrectly tagged.
>
> Option 3 means that all documents _could_ be tagged in a more specific
> manner but are no more vaguely tagged before and all prior assumptions are
> still valid.
>
> It is a collective business decision to choose #2 over #3: that the
> narrowing of scope of lav has no measurable negative consequences,
> effectively assuming that nothing tagged lav is actually Latgalian, and so
> effectively saying it is safe to assume that lav excluded Latgalian all
> along. That is somewhat risky, though in a very few instances since 639-3
> was published the JAC has gone in this direction. If there's reason to  say
> that users may have reasonably assumed Latgalian (or whatever variety is in
> question) was encompassed by the existing entry, then we should act
> conservatively and with caution. This is why the text of 639-3 states that
> the denotations of existing entries are not to be narrowed.
>
> Now, in the case of lav, the MARC Language Code List (
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/language_name.html) explicitly states
> that Latgalian is encompassed under lav. So, option 2 would break
> compatibility with MARC. We should not consider option 2 unless the MARC
> community explicitly indicates that this is acceptable.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:
> ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:18 PM
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?
>
> I would wager that the OVERWHELMING AMOUNT of lav-tagged data is standard
> written Latvian. Latgalian is like Bavarian. Whatever written standard it
> has was only marginal in the past; it may well increase in importance in
> future, but certainly most data and most printed books for the last few
> centuries has not been in Latgalian.
>
> I think (2) is the correct choice.
>
> On 22 Nov 2009, at 22:43, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20091122/fb70e873/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list