Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no
Wed Jun 16 13:30:28 CEST 2010
John Cowan, Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:29:55 -0400:
> ISO639-3 scripsit:
>> 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".
If hr/sr/bs are 'Standard forms/languages', while 'sh' is a
macrolanguage, then I don't see that e.g. 'sh-RS' can or could make
sense as - or be considered - a synonym of 'sr'.
>> 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.
[ Clarification: Excluded from language standardization - not excluded
from getting subtag ... ]
> (Standard Bosnian has some Old Shtokavian features, at least in theory.)
So what is it that makes 'sh' a 'macrolanguage'? The unregisterd Old
Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian dialects? A macrolanguage that
covers 4 Standard forms of the same language doesn't make sense, or
What happens that day when Kajkavian gets its own subtag? Does it get
'sh' as macrolanguage?
Milos suggested that that the name of the language covered by 'sh'
should be "(Neo-)Shtokavian".
Thus, according to this view, Old Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian
are not covered by 'sh'.
>> 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.
Didn't 'sh' refer to the, then, standardized Serbo-Croatian language?
In other words, wasn't 'sh' comparable to 'de'? Imagine that 'de-CH',
'de-DE' and 'de-AT' was "converted" into 'dc', 'dd' and 'dt' - would
doing such a thing turn 'de' into a 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.
leif halvard silli
More information about the Ietf-languages