Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)

mailler at phare.normalesup.org mailler at phare.normalesup.org
Wed Jun 8 09:21:12 CEST 2011


Hello,

OK, I see the problems that are adressed here, somne elements on which I
can answwer, for the rest I am no linguist and no normalization expert.


> Anyway:  whatever you decide about a tag, it seems this is a clearly
> distinct variety of Kichwa, and therefore deserves an ISO 639-3 code,
> just like all the other "standard" languages.
>
I read that an ISO 639-3 code for Unified kichwa has already been rejected
by SIL, I do not know when or on which ground, I was not filing the
request myself. Possibly, the request was filed the existing literature
was not sufficient (the main books describing the language are from
2009-2010).

>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:36 AM, mailler at phare.normalesup.org wrote:
>
>>> The list of the individual language covered (ISO 639-3 codes) is the
>>> following :
>>> qud, qxr, qug, qvi, qvj, qvz, qxl, quw.
>>> I think the most logical is to use the "qu" prefix since the Unified
>>> Kichwa does not adress all these dialects individually (the reference
>>> grammar book does not make a difference between dialects).
>
>
> I tend to agree with Anthony that if Sylvain Mailler is eliminating all
> other dialects except the macro-language from consideration . . . and if
> differences include grammar then he perhaps needs a language code, if his
> variety meets the criteria for a language (separate literature, identity,
> etc.); qu should be listed at the macrolanguage.  So +1 for Anthony's
> suggestion.
>

First of all I would like to make it clear that I was not inventing the
language myself and it is not "my variety" ;-).

When you say I perhaps need a language code, do you suggest I request one
from IETF (changing the proposal) or to SIL ? In the second case as
mentioned above it has already been filed and rejected.

Regarding the dialects, from my own experience (which is not a proof),
people speaking distinct dialect/languages can understand each other
pretty well, not worse than persons speaking  distinct occitan dialects
for example, so I don't really understand the SIL logic when it has 8
language codes for quechua inside Ecuador and only .


> Best,
>
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110607/4b7cba71/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:53:28 -0700
> From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126.com>
> To: Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>,
> 	"mailler at phare.normalesup.org"	<mailler at phare.normalesup.org>
> Cc: "ietf-languages at iana.org" <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: RE: Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
> Message-ID:
> 	<131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A9363F62C at EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>>
>> A question... Since Unified Kichwa is not just an orthography but
>> represents a
>> unified grammar as well, isn't a language code more appropriate than a
>> sub
>> tag?
>>
> I wouldn't think so: it isn't a separate language but rather a particular
> variation or flavor of Quechua, although ISO 639 is welcome to make a
> different conclusion ;-).
>
> I'm not sure that registering a subtag is necessary if the region code
> 'EC' already covers the particular need. Wikimedia's allergy to region
> codes could be considered perverse because, if taken to its logical
> extreme, it would require the registration of many more variant subtags to
> represent specific regional, official, or standardized forms that would
> otherwise be well identified by and associated with a given region.
> Greater diversity of tags that mean the same thing is actually a bad thing
> because it gives rise to interoperability problems.
>
> However, usually a distinction is maintained between specific language
> variations (especially when formally defined that thus may need to be
> separately identified) from general variations within a language. So I
> don't oppose this registration.
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:55:31 -0400
> From: John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
> To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126.com>
> Cc: "ietf-languages at iana.org" <ietf-languages at iana.org>,
> 	"mailler at phare.normalesup.org" <mailler at phare.normalesup.org>
> Subject: Re: Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
> Message-ID: <20110607175531.GE12202 at mercury.ccil.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
>
>> I wouldn't think so: it isn't a separate language but rather a
>> particular variation or flavor of Quechua, although ISO 639 is welcome
>> to make a different conclusion ;-).
>
> But Quechua is not itself a language; it is a language collection that
> is treated as a single language for some purposes.  I think having the
> concept "variant of a macrolanguage" is confusing and shouldn't be
> employed; macrolanguages have members, not variants, and if we allow
> both it will be very difficult to say which goes with what.
>
> Adding a standardized Ecuadorian Quechua with its own primary language
> subtag is closely analogous to Standard German, Arabic, or Chinese, all
> of which have their own primary language subtags.
>
>> I'm not sure that registering a subtag is necessary if the region code
>> 'EC' already covers the particular need. Wikimedia's allergy to region
>> codes could be considered perverse because, if taken to its logical
>> extreme, it would require the registration of many more variant
>> subtags to represent specific regional, official, or standardized
>> forms that would otherwise be well identified by and associated with a
>> given region.
>
> Their concern is, I think, legitimate: they do not want to set a
> precedent whereby the English Wikipedia became fragmented into en-US,
> en-GB, en-CA, ... varieties, which would serve no one well.
>
>> However, usually a distinction is maintained between specific language
>> variations (especially when formally defined that thus may need to be
>> separately identified) from general variations within a language.
>
> I don't understand this sentence.
>
> --
> And it was said that ever after, if any                 John Cowan
> man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               cowan at ccil.org
> great strength of will to turn it to other
> http://ccil.org/~cowan
> purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering
> in flame.   --"The Pyre of Denethor"
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:23:50 +0200
> From: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> To: John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>,	"Phillips, Addison"
> 	<addison at lab126.com>
> Cc: "ietf-languages at iana.org" <ietf-languages at iana.org>,
> 	"mailler at phare.normalesup.org" <mailler at phare.normalesup.org>
> Subject: Re: Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
> Message-ID: <CA146386.197F4%kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> Den 2011-06-07 19:55, skrev "John Cowan" <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>:
>
>> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
>>
>>> I wouldn't think so: it isn't a separate language but rather a
>>> particular variation or flavor of Quechua, although ISO 639 is welcome
>>> to make a different conclusion ;-).
>>
>> But Quechua is not itself a language; it is a language collection that
>> is treated as a single language for some purposes.  I think having the
>> concept "variant of a macrolanguage" is confusing and shouldn't be
>> employed; macrolanguages have members, not variants, and if we allow
>> both it will be very difficult to say which goes with what.
>
> But we have:
>
> %%
> Type: variant
> Subtag: pinyin
> Description: Pinyin romanization
> Added: 2008-10-14
> Prefix: zh-Latn
> Prefix: bo-Latn
> %%
>
> and 'zh' is a macrolanguage code... (And "standard" Chinese is Mandarin
> Chinese, with code cmn.)
>
>     /Kent K
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:47:06 -0400
> From: John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
> To: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> Cc: "ietf-languages at iana.org" <ietf-languages at iana.org>,
> 	"mailler at phare.normalesup.org" <mailler at phare.normalesup.org>
> Subject: Re: Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
> Message-ID: <20110607214705.GA5834 at mercury.ccil.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Kent Karlsson scripsit:
>
>> But we have:
>>
>> Type: variant
>> Subtag: pinyin
>> Description: Pinyin romanization
>> Added: 2008-10-14
>> Prefix: zh-Latn
>> Prefix: bo-Latn
>
> Formally, that's correct.  But the 'pinyin' subtag really specifies a
> variant of the orthography rather than of the macrolanguage itself.
>
> --
> Samuel Johnson on playing the violin:           John Cowan
> "Difficult do you call it, Sir?                 cowan at ccil.org
>  I wish it were impossible."                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:55:19 +0300
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Re: Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
> Message-ID: <24CAB509-109F-4D17-B90F-4D9C8FE7FC65 at evertype.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 19:10, Anthony Aristar wrote:
>
>> There are a number of such "Standard Languages" in the 639-3 system,
>> where the Standard language is exactly that: "a particular variation or
>> flavor".
>
> Another is N'Ko.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
> End of Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 101, Issue 2
> **********************************************
>



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list