This is a good point, and it is a difficult decision. Sometimes, I
think, the standards bodies make the wrong decision. On the other
hand, it is fairly arbitrary, so I don't think we could necessarily do
a "better" job on our own. Perhaps in close cases, it is better to ask
several experts in particular languages. I know that for much of the
Ethnologue, experts were not directly consulted. That is why
amendments are still made to ISO 639-3 - it isn't perfect.
Mark
2008/9/18 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hoi,
My point is that we should not decide for ourself what a language is. We
should leave that to others and to the standard body that is about this.
That does not mean that we are not interested in the process. It does not
mean that we should not be interested in how this issue can be approached,
but it does mean that *we *should not be the judge of what is a language.
Thanks.
GerardM
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com
wrote:
It is inevitable we have to use scientific tools,
one of them is the
Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache criterion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbausprache_-_Abstandsprache_-_Dachsprache
GerardM you critized the subjectivity of the clause "Sufficiently unique",
Why do not add scientifical criteria in the community draft?
C.m.l.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l