I have done that now. 2017-03-10 10:02 GMT+01:00 MF-Warburg <[email protected]>:
> I understand. However, is there any movement currently that tries to get > an ISO code? Otherwise, I think it would be clearer to mark it as rejected > and say that people are welcome to open a new request when they have an ISO > code (as we also did in similar cases). > > 2017-03-02 12:26 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>: > >> I would leave "on hold" status. >> >> Unlike the most of Slavic languages, Slovenian varieties are very >> distant between themselves. Speaker of standard Slovenian is not able >> to understand a person speaking a Styrian variety in Maribor and >> Prekmurian is even further to the east, belonging to the group of >> Pannonian varieties >> >> Not surprisingly, the issue of calling something a language or not is >> a political issue and, at the best, such initiatives are just not >> getting official support. >> >> There are many of such cases, some of them are bizarre, while the most >> of them are simply neglected. >> >> In the case of varieties of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and >> Montenegrin, the situation is bizarre on multiple levels. >> >> The whole area has four main varieties: >> * Shtokavian >> ** Neo-Sthokavian >> ** Older Shtokavian >> * Kaykavian >> * Chakavian >> * Shop / Torlakian (recognizes as "Prizren-Timok dialect", categorized >> locally as "Old Shtokavian) >> >> All of the ISO 639-3 recognized standards belong to the Neo-Shtokavian >> group. Montenegrin, not recognized by ISO 639-3 is a mix of >> Neo-Shtokavian and Older Shtokavian varieties (and, unlike three >> recognized varieties, has two more distinctive letters/phonemes). >> >> Not long ago, JAC has recognized Kaykavian. But the way it's been >> recognized is bizarre. It is categorized as "historical" language, >> although it's a living language. I even heard reasoning of one >> Croatian linguist that Chakavian is not recognized because it doesn't >> have "historical background", although it's a plain lie, as Chakavian >> was written in it's own, specific Glagolitic script up to the >> beginning of 20th century and is, as Kaykavian is, a living language. >> >> Shop / Torlakian -- although both living and mutually non-intelligible >> with the surrounding varieties of Serbian and Bulgarian -- doesn't >> have ISO 639-3 code because of both being neglected (by both, Serbian >> and Bulgarian side) as a kind of settled political issue related to >> the border area ethnicity. >> >> Having in mind that Montenegrin, the most distinctive variety of >> Shtokavian standards, recognized as a native language by ~200,000 >> people, haven't passed JAC, while other three have been recognized, >> that nobody cares about few hundred thousands speakers of Shop / >> Torlakian, I have no doubt that one interested person (and I see that >> his knowledge of English is not on particularly high level) can't push >> recognition of his native variety to become an "officially recognized >> language". >> >> That's the reason for my suggestion to give them unlimited time to do >> so. This is the case of completely valid language, which requires >> inclusion into ISO 639-3 to be added into Wikimedia. As, according to >> the present rules, we are not able to create "sla-prk" (as we did with >> "bas-smg", which has been eventually recognized as "sgs"), I think >> that we should simply leave it "on hold" and wait. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > +1 >> > >> > As noted in Ethnologue, Prekmurian remains mentioned under Slovenian >> > (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/slv), especially as the Slovenian >> > dialect as spoken in Hungary. The historical literature written in >> > Prekmurian, as argued about in the request discussion, is already >> included >> > in sl:wp (cf. >> > https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Prekmurske_tiskane_knjige). >> > >> > >> > On 02-Mar-17 03:55, MF-Warburg wrote: >> > >> > I propose to reject >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/ >> Wikipedia_Prekmurian>. >> > As noted on the page, there was a request to obtain an ISO code, but >> that >> > was rejected in 2012. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Langcom mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Langcom mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
