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
>
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
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 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 U
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 w
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
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 p
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 t
On 20 Sep 00, at 9:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 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 expec
At 6:24 AM -0800 9/21/00, Marion Gunn wrote:
>Arsa Antoine Leca:
>
>>
>>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-Persia
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 o
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
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 refere
Arsa Antoine Leca:
>
> 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, h
Am 2000-09-16 hat Michael Kaplan geschrieben:
> In a way, this is one of the only advantages to not giving locale tags any
> significance -- by assigning them numbers, you really are trying to stay
> out of the business of people who have very different ideas about names and
> such. In a world whe
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
> >> l
>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, whi
>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
>Azerbaij
>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
On 09/19/2000 06:01:46 AM Antoine Leca wrote:
>Most of these differences are related to the spoken languages, and do not
>appear in writing. Since IT is mainly related with writing, this is a
>more minor point that it may appear at first sight.
Some domains of IT are mainly interested in writin
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
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 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
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 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 regar
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 spok
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 necessa
On 09/16/2000 06:15:51 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:
>From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Doug Ewell 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',
>>
Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Michael Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Spaniards generally refer to their national language as "castellano,"
> >> not "español,"
In fact, "castellano" is more like a compromise used to describe the
linguistic situation of Spain. When speaking with Spaniards, nati
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Since I have spent this whole, *very* OT discussion as the contrarian
> ("devil's advocate" is too polite), I will take this opportunity to say
> that now that I understand John's proposal more clearly, I like it and
> think it makes a good deal of sense i
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am in favor of registering the tags in the Ethnologue (except for
> those which are *semantically* the same as existing 639-2 languages)
> in the RFC 1766 registry in the form i-sil-xxx.
and later:
> There are already collisions, so simply using one or
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
>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) l
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
> >IS
> 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 I
://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:
>
>
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 th
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
> 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
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Doug Ewell 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'. This is likely to cause much more wides
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. 'Chul
41 matches
Mail list logo
