Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)
John Cowan
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Wed Jun 8 19:46:46 CEST 2011
Caoimhin O Donnaile scripsit:
> The Linguistlist Composite Tree:
>
> http://multitree.org/trees/Quechuan%3A%20Composite
>
> seems to divide things up less finely than does SIL.
"Infinite are the arguments of mages."
Here are the SIL/ISO standard criteria for defining languages:
* Two related varieties are normally considered varieties of the same
language if speakers of each variety have inherent understanding of
the other variety at a functional level (that is, can understand based
on knowledge of their own variety without needing to learn the other
variety).
* Where spoken intelligibility between varieties is marginal, the
existence of a common literature or of a common ethnolinguistic identity
with a central variety that both understand can be a strong indicator
that they should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same
language.
* Where there is enough intelligibility between varieties to
enable communication, the existence of well-established distinct
ethnolinguistic identities can be a strong indicator that they should
nevertheless be considered to be different languages.
I think it's uncontroversial that SIL tends to recognize more languages
than other individuals or organizations (though specialists in
particular languages often think their splits are not fine enough!)
--
The man that wanders far cowan at ccil.org
from the walking tree http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list