cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Tue Jun 15 21:29:55 CEST 2010
> This arrangement recognizes the Serbo-Croatian diasystem, with three
> associated standard forms. "Standard forms" would seem to be the more
> appropriate interpretation of [bs / bos] ; [hr / hrv] ; and [sr / srp],
> as opposed to "all the varieties of this language as spoken in Bosnia ;
> Croatia ; Serbia"
Quite so. Indeed, all four standard languages are derived from the same
original spoken form, the East Hercegovinian form of the Neo-Shtokavian
dialect of "Our Language".
> The standard forms clearly do not collectively encompass all that the
> Serbo-Croatian code element encompasses.
Indeed not: the Old Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian dialects
are part of the overall diasystem, but excluded from standardization.
(Standard Bosnian has some Old Shtokavian features, at least in theory.)
> I am interested in this group's thoughts regarding whether the
> Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage in Part 3 (though not included in Part 2,
> and deprecated in Part 1) is a factor, and in what ways.
Certainly if the RA/JAC adds an ISO 639-3 code element for Standard
Montenegrin, that code should be added to the macrolanguage.
Given the existence of code elements for the other standard forms,
I'm willing to say that Montenegrin should be added to all three parts.
The local precedent is in this case more important than the general rules
for 639. Given that 639-1 and 639-2 are primarily concerned with written
materials, there is no need for them to have code elements corresponding
to hbs, but there is no harm in having them.
Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan
could understand this report. Run out cowan at ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
--Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
More information about the Ietf-languages