[Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 44, Issue 15

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In that case the definition in French has to change. ISO-639-3 does include
sign languages and that is a good thing too.
Thanks,
     Gerard

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Lang Gérard <gerard.lang at insee.fr> wrote:

> I do not think that all variants of "Sign languages" taken care of inside
> ISO 639 and IANA's Registry could enter under the"means of verbal
> communication" that are described as a condition for a language by UNGEGN.
> This question of definition of "languages" is clearly linked with the fact
> that the english word "language" has two possible interpretations in french:
> -(i) "langue", that is linked whith "tongue" (that has the same translation
> "langue" in french), evidently connected with "verbal communication" and
> oriented on the semantics (this interpretation clearly excludes all forms of
> signed or only symbolic languages);
> -(ii) "language", that is more extensive and more oriented on syntax, and
> allows to take care of sign languages as well as many sorts of artificial
> and symbolic languages, like informatics, or "chess game description",
> ......
>
> The french title of ISO 639 is "Codes pour la representation des noms de
> LANGUES" that , in principle, does not include Sign languages (that are not
> "verbal communication means").
>
> Gérard LANG
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
> Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2008 16:18
> À : Lang Gérard
> Cc : ltru at ietf.org; ietf-languages at iana.org
> Objet : Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 44, Issue 15
>
> Lang Gérard scripsit:
>
> > 0-Let me suggest that we should adopt a precise, uniform and
> > recognized terminology when discussing about transformations between
> > languages and/or scripts.
>
> As far as I can tell, we are currently using the terms "transcription",
> "transliteration", "romanization", "language" (except that we do not require
> a language community to be large), and "script" in the same senses as
> UNGEGN.  We have not used the broader terms "transformation" (meaning
> translation, transcription, or transliteration) and "conversion" (meaning
> transcription or transliteration), but they are reasonable additions to the
> toolkit.  The term "translation" is not relevant to our work.
>
> We also use a different taxonomy of scripts, dividing them into alphabets,
> abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, and logosyllabaries: see
> http://www.unicode.org/glossary for terse definitions, or Section 6.1 of
> the Unicode Standard for detailed explanations (available online at
> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch06.pdf .
>
> --
> John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan <http://ccil.org/%7Ecowan>
> cowan at ccil.org
> 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale
> / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't
> stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale.  --Greg Baker
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081003/f698b1ea/attachment.htm