At 7:18 AM -0800 11/23/00, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Spoken language is not necessarily at all the same
thing as written language .
There are e.g. plenty of mutually incomprehensible
forms of spoken English which might each deserve a
code in a standard for spoken languages but
Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:18 AM -0800 11/23/00, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Spoken language is not necessarily at all the same thing as
written language . There are e.g. plenty of mutually
incomprehensible forms of spoken English which might each deserve
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
I've yet to encounter a spoken
version of English that I couldn't understand, after at most a couple
of minutes of accustoming myself to the accent.
You live in a country where dialect differentiation is a feeble thing,
consisting mainly in pronunciation, and
John Cowan noted:
In general, Geordie (the traditional dialect spoken around the Tyne
River in England) is considered to be the English dialect most difficult
for North Americans.
To that I would add Glaswegian. When watching the
Scots-produced mystery shows that show up on PBS in the
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
To that I would add Glaswegian. When watching the
Scots-produced mystery shows that show up on PBS in the United
States on occasion, my wife and I often turn to each other
in bafflement and say, "Subtitles, please."
Scots is a separate language! If you understand
John Cowan replied:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
To that I would add Glaswegian. When watching the
Scots-produced mystery shows that show up on PBS in the United
States on occasion, my wife and I often turn to each other
in bafflement and say, "Subtitles, please."
Scots is a separate
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Scots is a separate language! If you understand anything at all
it's by a happy accident. (There is of course Scots-flavored
English as well, which is another matter.)
I was, of course, referring to Scots (alleged) English, and not
to
Peter Constable wrote:
This is a good example of why an enumeration of "languages"
based only on written forms (as found in ISO 639) is
insufficient for all user needs.
Of course ISO 639 is insufficient for *all* user needs
- no standard is. And is there actually a remit for
ISO 639 to
At 6:24 AM -0800 9/21/00, Marion Gunn wrote:
Arsa Antoine Leca:
CITE
Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu could be considered co-dialects, but
have important
sociolinguistic differences. Hindi uses the Devanagari writing system, and
formal vocabulary is borrowed from Sanskrit, de-Persianized,
Peter Constable wrote:
SRC is the code for 'Bosnian', 'Croatian', and 'Serbo-Croatian', which
means that there is a many-to-one mapping from ISO 639-1 'bs', 'hr',
'sr' to Ethnologue 'SRC'.
By Ethnologue standards of mutual intelligibility, there is only one
language here.
Well,
Arsa Antoine Leca:
CITE
Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu could be considered co-dialects, but have important
sociolinguistic differences. Hindi uses the Devanagari writing system, and
formal vocabulary is borrowed from Sanskrit, de-Persianized, de-Arabicized.
Literary Hindi, or Hindi-Urdu,
Marion Gunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu could be considered co-dialects...
Mm. Maybe a more polite (more PC) turn of phrase might be found than
"could be considered co-dialects", which more than implies, it
postulates the existence of a standard language referent of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marion Gunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mm. Maybe a more polite (more PC) turn of phrase might be found than
"could be considered co-dialects", which more than implies, it
postulates the existence of a standard
Arsa Kevin Bracey:
As far as I'm aware the co- prefix does mean an equal grouping. Examples that
spring to mind are co-worker, co-conspirator, co-exist, coincidence and
co-operative. I thought co-dialects was a cunningly concise way of saying
that they could all be considered dialects of
On 09/16/2000 04:27:45 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
All I am asking in this particular case is for the Ethnologue editor to
assign *one* primary name (and spelling) to each three-letter language
code, and to relegate the other names to alternate status in a
consistent way. That is the first necessary
On 09/17/2000 03:19:32 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
Well, perhaps this is another, unintended example of a problem with
incorporating the Ethnologue linguistic distinctions into other
standards without serious review. If Spaniards consider their language
sufficiently different from the Spanish spoken
On 09/17/2000 11:39:14 AM Doug Ewell wrote:
What names are I supposed to associate with codes like SHU, MKJ, and
SRC in my (possibly hypothetical) application that deals with language
tags? Such associations are normally expected to be one-to-one.
If Ethnologue codes are going to be regarded
On 09/17/2000 07:22:05 PM "Carl W. Brown" wrote:
You are right the Ethnologue is not appropriate as a standard.
If we're assuming a single standard, in the sense of a single "tiling of
the plane" of languages, we're not proposing that the Ethnologue be the
standard. We are suggesting, though,
On 09/17/2000 08:02:20 PM John Cowan wrote:
Where I see using the SIL is as an extension of the ISO standard.
RFC 1766 exists to allow flexible extension to the ISO standard.
If there
is no ISO code then use the SIL code.
There are already collisions, so simply using one or the other
gets
On 09/17/2000 10:37:42 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
Since I have spent this whole, *very* OT discussion as the contrarian
It hasn't been all that off-topic. This has come up on numerous occasions
on this list, and I think is of interest to many of the participants, even
though it isn't strictly about
On 09/17/2000 11:13:36 PM John Cowan wrote:
Exactly so. And BTW "my proposal" is also Harald Alvestrand's proposal.
I wasn't aware of that until Harald mentioned something not too many days
ago.
- Peter
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:06 AM
What is important here is that, where ISO doesn't provide a code, that
users do have some other source of codes for internal and, more
importantly, interchange purposes. Many independent agencies and
From: "Carl W. Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:06 AM
I agree. For example when it was brought up that other Turkic languages
might be using the dot less i. I noticed that the SIL confirmed that
Azerbaijan uses
From: Nick Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:48 PM
Apart from cohabiting in Anatolia for a millenium. :-) In any case, the
Ethnologue is correct about Urum; Urum and Mariupolitan Greek are the two
languages spoken by an ethnically Greek population, which
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug wants the Ethnologue to give each of its languages (uniquely
tagged) a single unique worldwide authoritative name. That's not
reasonable in all cases, though it is in 99.5%.
What names are I supposed to associate with codes like SHU, MKJ, and
SRC in
Michael Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spaniards generally refer to their national language as "castellano,"
not "español,"
FWIW, I do not know of any Spaniards who object to "español" for the
generic language spoken by everyone around the world Castilian
they reserve for their own
://www.i18nWithVB.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: the Ethnologue
Michael Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spaniards generally refer to the
Michka wrote :
Most seem to be okay with the addition of the country/region tag from
ISO-3166 for determing the difference between languages spoken in several
places -- this is usually what is done for English, Arabic, Portuguese,
French, and Chinese, as well.
I don't see how one can use
arl W. Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: [OT] Re: the Ethnologue
Michka wrote :
Most seem to be okay with the addition of the country/region tag from
ISO-3166 for determing the difference betw
John Cowan wrote:
I see the problem: the same language (with the same code) may be
preferentially
known by one name in one country and another name in another. Because
the Ethnologue names languages by country, conflicts like this can appear.
The entry on "Chadian Spoken Arabic" (in Chad) lists
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carl W. Brown wrote:
I can understand your point of view as a standards person.
You are right the Ethnologue is not appropriate as a standard. But that
does not make it useless.
I am not a "standards person", and I think you have my stand mixed up.
I am in favor of
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Doug Ewell wrote:
But it gets worse. When I stripped out the alternate-names field and
again checked for duplicated codes, I found 14 (AVL AYL CAG CTO FUV GAX
GSC GSW JUP MHI MHM MKJ SHU SRC). Some of these duplicates differ only
in spelling (CAG 'Chulupi' vs.
From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems clear from the detailed information that in all 14 cases,
there is only one language, known by different names in different
countries. Expecting the Ethnologue to solve this problem by fiat,
or even to openly prefer one name over another
33 matches
Mail list logo
