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