Identifier: srd
Name: Sardinian
Status: Active
Code sets: 639-2 and 639-3
Equivalent: 639-1: sc
Scope: Macrolanguage
Type: Living
The individual languages within this macrolanguage are:
Campidanese Sardinian [sro]
Gallurese Sardinian [sdn]
Logudorese Sardinian [src]
Sassarese Sardinian [sdc]
Best regards
Debbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Williamson [mailto:node.ue@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 September 2007 13:04
To: debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
languages or languageand dialect?]
sc? What does it stand for, besides Sardinian?
Mark
On 11/09/2007, Debbie Garside <debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
>...the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
language in the
world that
wants
recognition by ISO must request an own ISO 639 code.
It is not an option to simply say:
now
let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is
there
stands for something else.
Sabine is quite right... This would, indeed, be disastrous!
Best wishes
Debbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Sabine Cretella
> Sent: 11 September 2007 09:25
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List;
> wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or
> languageand dialect?]
>
> Forwarding the post on my blog.
>
> Cheers, Sabine
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>
> Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that
question ...
> and that is from the institution that cares
about this
officially -
> the Region of Sardinia.
>
> When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the
actual Sardinian
> wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org>
there is no doubt that the
> language exists, but we must appreciate that it is an artificial
> language that was created out of the living languages of
Sardinia.
> The website of the Region of Sardinia
>
<http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:
>
> Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa
Limba sarda
> comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è
in posizione mediana
> rispetto a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora essere
migliorata
> per farla diventare la lingua ufficiale dei
sardi.
>
> Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa
Limba sarda
> comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in
an intermediate
> position compared to all Sardinian dialects and can still be
> improved to have it become the official language of the Sardinian
> people
>
> So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8 per
> cent of it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not natural. If I
> consider these percentages to what translators work with
every day,
> that is the "matches" we get in
our CAT tools, then 92,8
percent is
> a low percentage of being
"natural". It seems to be high, but in
> fact it is not ...
>
> Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for
> example) and my analysis software tells me that the text is up to
> 93% percent equal to another sentence I translated before, this
> means that I cannot leave the sentence as is, because I
will need to
> change at least one word in the sentence to
make it a proper
> translation of what is there.
>
> Just to give you an example:
> The house on the hill is green - that is what was
translated before.
> Now I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a
sentence
> like: the tree on the hill is green. If I left it as is: it would
> state something completely different.
>
> You can also look at it like this:
> The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100%
English The
> house on the hill is nice and vert. - that
is approx. 89
% English +
> 11% French (it is just a matter of playing
with the
amount of words
> to get the 92,8%)
>
> So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is
considered
> to be built out of the "natural
language part" it is still an
> artificial language.
>
> But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that
very much
> depends from which POV you look at things.
But ISO
determined some
> rules to understand what a language is and
what not. That
is, before
> you can get an ISO 639 code for a language
you need to prove that
> this languabe complies to the standard. Of course there
are living
> languages that don't have an ISO code,
because up to now nobody
> cared for them - I am just thinking about Griko Salentino, a
> language spoken and written in Italy - but if people care
about that
> language, they will ask for it.
>
> What is a dialect ...
>
> a) a language without an army
> b) a way of expressing orally that developed out of a
language and
> that has some differences , for example in
pronunciation, some
> expressions etc, even having the same basics when it comes to
> grammar (just to mention one example)
>
> So could
>
> Campidanese (ISO 639-3: sro)
>
> Gallurese (ISO 639-3: sdn)
>
> Logudorese (ISO 639-3: src)
>
> Sassarese (ISO 639-3: sdc)
>
> be dialects of the Common Sardinian Language? Well ...
only from a
> logical POV this is not possible, because
they were there long
> before the Common Sardinian Language was created ...
>
> By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code, they
> complied to the requests of the International Standardisation
> Organisation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and
therefore, on an
> international level they are considered to
be languages
even with an
> ISO code.
>
> Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have
one, but
> these can request a code ...
>
> When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line
> somewhere and this line should not come from us, that is:
it is NOT
> up to the members of the language committee
to decide what a
> language is or not.
> We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one was
> and still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to
complain and
> say that the four languages above are in
fact dialects of
Sardinian
> and not languages, we should kindly invite
them to create their
> papers and contact ISO directly to have the ISO 639-3
language code
> taken away ...
> it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.
>
> Another thing people should then also consider to do: also UNESCO
> states that these four languages are languages and they
are in the
> red book of endangered languages - so if
whoever states that they
> are not languages and he/she is so sure about it: they
should also
> contact UNESCO. It is NOT up to the language
committee to
take such
> decisions as to delete four languages out of
the endangered
> languages list ...
>
> Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions about
> what is and what is not a language come up ... well:
> before you come to us, please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies that
> deal with the question.
>
> We are only normal people that base their decisions on
standards and
> can tell people where to go to request their
code, but we can nor
> create that code, nor influence what is recognised on an
> international level.
> (Nor do we want to do that).
>
> Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at the
> beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the Sardinian
> languages, then someone came up and decided to make
sc.wikipedia a
> Limba Sarda Comune wikipedia only. Well: the
Limba Sarda
Comune is
> being used by Sardinian Authorities to
facilitate their work.
>
> In any case the code "sc" stands for the macro language Sardinian
> and not for the Limba Sarda Comune, so there is no reason why it
> should have the right to claim that code for the
language. That is
> the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
language in the world that
> wants recognition by ISO must request an own ISO 639
code. It is not
> an option to simply say:
> now let's take that one since it is there ... well the
one that is
> there stands for something else.
>
> The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of people
> telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a dialect of
> Sardinian and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common Sardinian
> Language) is the only "right language" of Sardinia.
>
> Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on
Sassarese and the
> other three being or not being a language -
we rely on ISO 639-3
> codes since we had to draw a line and avoid to simply
assert things.
> It is not us who is going to decide if the
Limba Sarda Comune is
> going to get an ISO 639 code. If you, who read this, are
interested
> in this matter, it is up to you to get
things on their way.
>
> See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was
one of the
> wisest decisions ever taken within the
language committee ...
> imagine which fights (almost all political
> based) we would have if we did not do this.
>
> Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:
>
> a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
> b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
> c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for one
> language
> d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there
since it could
> be used to create easily sustainable
communities
> e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is a
> language or not (it has a code)
> f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune
which does
NOT have
an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code in an improper
way.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
--
Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
<http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassare
se-languages-or.html>
at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.