Criteria for languages?

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Nov 23 00:17:32 CET 2009


I would wager that the OVERWHELMING AMOUNT of lav-tagged data is  
standard written Latvian. Latgalian is like Bavarian. Whatever written  
standard it has was only marginal in the past; it may well increase in  
importance in future, but certainly most data and most printed books  
for the last few centuries has not been in Latgalian.

I think (2) is the correct choice.

On 22 Nov 2009, at 22:43, Peter Constable wrote:

> The issue with Latvian is this: a case has been made that Latgalian  
> should be deemed a distinct language from the standardized Latvian  
> variety (let's call that "Standard Latvian"). If accepted, then one  
> must choose what to do with the existing entry, lav "Latvian",  
> keeping in mind the impact on existing documents and  
> implementations. The options are:
>
> 1. deprecate lav; add new individual-language entries for Latgalian  
> and "Standard Latvian"
>
> 2. add a new individual-language entry for Latgalian; deem lav to be  
> an individual-language entry denoting "Standard Latvian"
>
> 3. add new individual-language entries for Latgalian, "Standard  
> Latvian"; continue to deem lav as encompassing both of these—which  
> requires the scope to be change to M or C, and since lav has been  
> broadly treated as an individual-language entry go with M
>
> Both 1 and 2 would have undesirable impacts on existing data and  
> implementations, so 3 would be preferable.
>
> Of course, if the request to deem Latgalian a distinct language were  
> rejected, then all of this would be moot: none of these changes  
> would be made. But if there are reasonable grounds for the request,  
> then it is quite appropriate for the RA to accept it, and some  
> follow-on actions become necessary.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> ] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?
>
> Mark Davis ? <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>
>> B. The criteria for macrolanguages are also very murky to me. Take  
>> the
>> two cases:
>>
>> a. Latvian was changed to a macrolanguage, and what was formerly
>> considered Latvian is titled Standard Latvian
>>
>> b. Swiss German was not changed to a macrolanguage; instead,
>> Walliserdeutsch is no longer considered Swiss German.
>>
>> Could someone clarify why the choice is made one way in one case, and
>> another way in the other case?
>
> Well, the choice hasn't been made yet by ISO 639-3/RA, at least as  
> far as we know; these are just proposals so far.  We'll have to wait  
> until the decisions are published, or possibly get an early heads-up  
> from Joan.
>
> Basically, in order to claim that Latvian should be a macrolanguage,  
> the requester needs to show that it is sometimes appropriate to  
> speak of Standard Latvian and Latgalian as separate languages, and  
> sometimes to speak of them as a single language called "Latvian."   
> Likewise for Standard Lithuanian, Samogitian, and "Lithuanian."  I  
> get the feeling people still really don't understand what a  
> macrolanguage is supposed to be, and think it is another name for a  
> collection.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org  
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list