Oh, please don't bring the langcom fights here, too :)
Both of you are right: on the one hand, ISO codes are often more political than linguistically correct. On the other hand, we don't have anything better, except making ad hoc decisions based on scientific articles about languages that most of us don't know. And this simply doesn't scale.
Can we do anything to improve the ISO 639 process?
נשלח מטלפון, שאולי עשה שטויות עם תיקון אוטומטי
Sent from a phone, which may have done silly autocorrections
Hoi,
When you want to close options as possibilities in this way so be it.
Thanks,
GerardOn 7 September 2012 12:07, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Gerard MeijssenJAC can decide what is a language and what is not for themselves. SIL
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> When people ask for a Wikipedia, there are procedures to get them. When
> people ask for functionality that affects the considerations applied within
> those procedures, it is for the language committee to formulate an opinion.
> When the line between dialects and languages is obfusicated it will be a
> proper argument using the right vocabulary to convince. The right vocabulary
> is that it is ISO who decides what is a language and what is not. Anything
> different is not acceptable. The notion that we can add to ISO-639-6 is a
> definite no.
in the past and JAC today have shown that they are incompetent bodies.
They are quite capable to decide what is English, French or Russian
language, but not much more than that. They have problems with German
language continuum, which is likely the best described in the world;
very well described South Slavic language continuum is a nightmare for
them; in the case of not so well described Romany languages,
Ethnologue classification has no tangents with the classification of
local linguists.
Fortunately, nobody asked you for the opinion. Editors of one project
> When multiple languages want to collaborate in one Wikipedia, the standard
> answer is no. Particularly when people discuss such wishes are not the
> native speakers involved it is likely to be a "NO".
are able to do whatever they want, while it's according to some basic
rules, which don't include enforcing your opinion.
So what?
> This discussion list can discuss and it will typically find people of the
> language committee interested and inclined to listen to good arguments.
> However, the problem with exceptions to a rule is that people will consider
> them as the new rule. This may mean that an exception around Cree may be
> seen as an argument for applying it as the rule for a different set of
> circumstances.
_______________________________________________
Languages mailing list
Languages@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/languages
_______________________________________________
Languages mailing list
Languages@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/languages