<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi. I can go as far now as undeprecating [sh]. But I think no matter what way we go this issue is political;<BR>
And I think the three currently-encoded languages are as distinct as some others encoded.<BR>
I need more information on Serbian versus Montenegrin but will not object to a separate code even without more information. (But I can't endorse it.)<BR>Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no <BR>Wed Jun 16 00:10:36 CEST 2010 <BR>
<BR>> Kent Karlsson, Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:51:43 +0200:<BR>> Den 2010-06-15 17.13, skrev "ISO639-3" <ISO639-3 at sil.org>:<BR>> <BR>
>>> I am interested in this group's thoughts regarding whether the<BR>>>> Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage in Part 3 (though not included in Part 2, and<BR>>>> deprecated in Part 1) is a factor, and in what ways.<BR>> <BR>>> From the information I've seen, I think 'sh' should be undeprecated in<BR>>> part 1 (as we did for IANA language subtags), and 'hbs' be included in<BR>>> part 2 (each part 1 code must have an equivalent part 2 code).<BR>>> <BR>>> Since the [bs / bos], [hr / hrv], and [sr / srp] codes seem to be created<BR>>> for purely political reasons, these should be deprecated, and ISO (i.e. the<BR>>> relevant RA:s for language codes) should resist this kind of politicised<BR>>> codes.<BR>
> +1 (!) This would be my absolute preference.<BR>
>> While it sometimes may be hard to draw the line between what should<BR>>> be regarded as different languages or just different dialects of the same<BR>>> language, it seems that here there are just some rather minor differences<BR>>> of dialects of the same language and even smaller differences in<BR>>> orthography (more of experimental, even failing, spelling reforms than<BR>>> anything else). The Latn/Cyrl script difference is another matter, and<BR>>> there is apparently a one-to-one correspondence in this case (which isn't<BR>>> always the case when converting between Latn and Cyrl for words/names;<BR>>> depending on languages *and* spelling preferences per word/name).<BR>> -- <BR>> leif halvard silli<BR>
I tend to think that speakers of one language may believe their dialects to be seprate languages while speakers of another may not see a geographic or country associated with their mutually comprehensible dialects so may prefer to<BR>
encode them as variants.<BR>
<BR>I can at this point go with Kent and Mark's suggestion for undeprecating [sh] -- I note that we've discussed this issue before here and it got nowhere.<BR>
<BR>
I personally think that the decision to deprecate these three codes ( [sr], [hr], [bs] is thorny coming from outsiders to the region.<BR>(If we keep these three we may have to add a code for Montenegrin: I suppose that is where this is going.<BR>
I would like to see more description of the differences.)<BR><BR>
We have other relatively slightly differentiated languages encoded as separate languages now.<BR>(I have limited knowledge of Iranian Persian but notwithstanding I checked out a youtube video for learning Dari [Afghan Persian] and what I saw was what I already knew in Iranian Persian . . . of course the lessons did not go far enough for me to be sure there were no real differences -- and<BR>there are differences I am sure that I missed as someone who probably did not get the accent quite right but I just can't say which group of languages [the Persian group or the Serbo-Croatian group] is more or less differentiated than the other.<BR>Thus, it's political to me at this point whichever way we go in any case. I hope this makes sense.)<BR>
Best,<BR>
C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR> </body>
</html>