Hoi,
A language code will not be issued by IANA unless a request for an ISO 639
code has been granted. The Limba Sarda Comune is as indicated before a
written language that has just been created. We do not make up codes any
more even though we did so in the past. The problems that we create for
ourselves are just not worth it.
I do also think that you do not know your facts that well. All recognised
sign languages do not comply with the requirement that there are fifty books
in that language. It is just one group of languages that does not fit in
your idea of how recognition for languages may be had, there are others.
As the Limba Sarda Comune is a recently constructed language, it will once
recognised get a code that will sit on the same level as the four languages
that are recognised already. Your notion that we should allow for the
combining of languages is flatly wrong, it will lead to the most awful
politicking. It is therefore that the language committee does disapprove of
any such moves.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9/11/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that we use international standards of language content
codes to classify Wikipedias by language.
Occasionally, there is a language variety which spans several of them,
has none at all, or there may be several very distinct varieties
within one code which require separate Wikipedias.
Unfortunately, the current procedure of the Langcom seems to be to
require anyone whose Wiki does not fit neatly into one of the holes
carved by the IANA to request a new code from the IANA itself. I do
not disagree with that 100%, after all if we are making up our own
codes avante-gard, then our content cannot be processed by external
sources according to language (search engines, for example). I also
have objections to it however, but I am sure that by now these are
obvious if you do not already know what they are (it limits legitimate
varieties from getting their own Wiki in a relatively timely fashion,
and discriminates against non-European languages although that is
unintentional, they are just less well-documented in general).
Thankfully, I think, the Langcom does not seek to or does not have the
power (?) to close or rename existing Wikis, so "wrong" codes like sc
and the like which are actually "macrolanguage codes" will not be
closed in the interim.
Unfortunately the current international standards are very flawed.
However, we cannot expect them to be perfect in a world where we have
thousands of languages and many people disagree on what should be
considered a language.
It is an imperfect standard, but it is the best that is currently
available, so if you discover a problem in it (a language is missing,
or a language is divided into too many parts), it is probably best, as
Gerard suggested, to submit a correction, but be prepared to back it
up with lots of documentation... to get a new code (I believe), there
must be at least 50 books existing in a language, which could be a lot
to ask for some languages, and obviously was not used as a requirement
for when codes were "imported" from Ethnologue.
However, as far as Sardinian goes, rather than combining Logudorese
and Campidanese into a single entity and merging Gallurese and
Sassarese into Corsican, I think it is best to add a code for
something written in one of the several unified varieties of
Sardinian, if not specifically LSC (for example its predecessor LSU,
or the amateur creation Limba de Messania), because it may still
sometimes be necessary to maintain parallel translations of a document
in each variety, and also because Gallurese and _especially_ Sassarese
are not usually accepted by Corsicans as pure "Corsican" and would
probably not be allowed on the Corsican Wikipedia.
Mark
On 10/09/2007, Nicolò Zamperini <nick1915(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The Sardinian idiom is indeed recognized as a
language; please see any
of
the references below.
* ML Wagner, Sardinian Language, Bern, Francke, 1951
* A. Sanna, Introduzione agli studi di linguistica sarda, Cagliari,
Regione Autonoma Sardegna, 1957
* M. Cortellazzo, Profilo dei dialetti italiani, Pisa, Pacini-CNR,
1982
(n.20 "Sardegna")
* E. Blasco Ferrer, Storia linguistica della Sardegna (Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie ; vol. 202), Tübingen, Niemeyer,
1984
* E. Blasco Ferrer, Il sardo (in Lexikon der
Romanistischen
Linguistik,
cit. II/2 pp. 239-271)
* E. Blasco Ferrer, Handbuch der italienischen Sprachwissenschaft,
Berlin : E. Schmidt, 1994
* Lenguas minoritarias en la romania. El sardo. Estado de la
cuestión,
special rewiev of "Revista de filología
románica", 17 (2000)
* I. Nichita, Complexul insulei. Fizionomia lexicului sard,
Bucureşti,
Lumina Lex, 1998
Sassarese and gallurese are ''variants'' of
'''corso''' ([
http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/flash/regionalok.htm
],
[[:Image:Dialetti corsi.gif]]) and the others
(logudorese, nuorese,
aborense
etc.) are variants of Sardinian lang. The UNESCO
report (
http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Etasalmin/europe_report.html#GSardinian) is a
very
good source when dealing with the preservation of
endangered languages,
but
it's hardly authoritative
aboutphilological-linguistical issues....
The fact that a language's distinctive trait should not be traced
exclusively to a specific heritage of literary works is one of the
founding
tenets of linguistics; on the contrary, these
distinctive traits are
developed through the comparison of syntax and morphology, and
especially by
studying phonological transformations.
The philologists (whose works I have quoted in the references) have
picked
up such common "distinctive traits",
identifying one big language group
called "Sardo" (Sardinian). These results are not some individual's
original
research; they are a respected linguistics thesis
with a proven track
record, accepted by most experts in the field.
It is true that the issues on languages spoken in Italy are among most
complex to be found in this field; it is somewhat understandable that
the
Lancom is faced with great difficulties in
handling them.
Nick
2007/9/10, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
> Correct, you analysis is closest to the reality.
>
> The problem is that Sardinian is the "polished" language. Sassarese,
> Campidanese, Logudorese and Campidanese are dialects or spoken
languages
> or "vulgari eloquentiae" as Dante
Alighieri could say.
>
> Dante Alighieri in XIII century understood the difference and he said
> that a "vulgari eloquentia" to become a "literary" language must
be:
> noble, aulic, courtier and distinguished. It not sufficient to have a
> spoken language or a literature (in this case we ares closer to the
> dialect than a language), but a dialect must be used in politic,
courts
> of justice, litterature and so on (the
difference of registries) to be
a
> language.
>
> For many centuries in Italy (for example) it has been discussed if the
> Italian language would be a super-language or a "polished" dialect.
> After discussions and discussions and discussions poetries and
literary
> men has chosen a "polished"
dialect because there was not a politic
> unity to impose a super-language.
>
> This is what happened in the past or what happens in present days: or
a
> dialect is stronger than other and it
becomes a "polished" dialect
with
> difference of registries and it is used in
politic, justice,
literature
> and media or a country impose a
super-language mixing different
dialects.
>
> Sardinia is following the second one, it is a mix of Logudorese and
> Campidanese because they have got a literature and they are more
> widespread than other two.
>
> Ilario
> ====================
> Wikimedia CH board member
> Wikimedia Italy member
>
> Aphaia wrote:
> > It sounds like a relation between Indonesian language (artificial,
but
> > official language of Indonesia) and
native languages spoken in that
> > state (Javanese, Sundanese etc etc). So it can be "official" and
> > written language but not spoken. At least now.
> >
> > Since it is highly political, and not genuinely linguistics, I think
> > we need to establish a general consensus toward the issue: if a
> > certain local community or even limited to the government tries to
> > standardize their language in an official but artificial manner, and
> > they have no real speaker yet, we accept such language as part of
our
> > project. I am not sure if there is a
general consensus to support
such
> > experimental activities on Wikimedia
community, though, being aware
we
> > know some successful cases in the
history.
> >
> > On 9/10/07, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree, but I have said that in Italy this situation is
"normal".
The
> >> "Limba Sarda Comune"
(translation is "Sardinian common language")
is
> >> not a spoken language.
> >>
> >> Some "collections" of languages has invented a superlanguage to
write
> >> official documents. The "Limba
Sarda Comune" is similar to the
Romansh
> >> as "status". It has been
invented (as Romansh) as official language
of
> >> a Region:
> >>
> >> "Recentemente (2006), La Regione Autonoma della Sardegna ha
> >> individuato una varietà scritta mediana del sardo, denominata Limba
> >> Sarda Comuna (LSC) da usare nei suoi documenti ufficiali in uscita,
> >> con carattere quindi di coufficialità. La LSC si propone come
varietà
> >> intermedia tra le due varietà di
sardo letterario già esistenti
> >> (Campidanese e Logudorese)."
> >>
> >> The Limba Sarda is a superlanguage, created by the "Regione
Autonoma
> >> of Sardinia" combining
Campidanese and Logudorese (two of for
> >> sardinian dialects, but the more diffused) and it is used in
official
> >> documents. This is the first step
to create a language: from
dialect
> >> to enrichment of registries.
> >>
> >> See here:
> >>
> >>
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Lingue_di_Sardegna_mod.gif
> >>
> >> the orange parts cover Campidanese and Logudorese.
> >>
> >> The Gallurese is the third sardinian dialect closest to Corse
> >> Language, the Sassarese (spoken in a small part of Sardinia) is the
> >> fourth dialect in middle of Limba Sarda and Corse Language.
> >>
> >> You understand that is crazy to have a wikipedia in a dialect that
has
> >> not a grammar and not a dictionary
well defined (Wikipedia is
written
> >> and not spoken). Probably the
Sardinia Region has had the some
problem
> >> and for this reason has invented a
"written" language.
> >>
> >> Ilario
> >>
> >> On 9/10/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> What you write is completely beside the point. At issue is
Sardinian
> and
> >>> Sassarese not Romansh or Lombard. As far as the language committee
is
> >>> concerned, there are four
Sardinian languages and none of them is
the
> Limba
> >>> Sarda Comune.
> >>>
> >>> We are quite adamant that a language needs recognition as such.
There
> are
> >>> many issues with regard to this kind of recognition but the most
> relevant
> >>> part is that it is a process that takes time and involves many
> experts. It
> >>> takes so much time because the standard organisations do their
best to
> get
> >>> it right. Where you describe dialects within a languages, it is
not
> specific
> >>> to Italian languages. The issue of some people trying to come to a
> "unified"
> >>> language is not unique to Sardinia either.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> GerardM
> >>>
> >>> On 9/10/07, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sardinian is a collection of different dialects spoken in
Sardinia.
> >>>>
> >>>> The environment is similar to Romansh (which is a collection of
> >>>> different languages as Surmiran, Sursilvan etc.) with the
difference
> >>>> that the super-language
Romansh is officially recognized and has
got
> a
> >>>> grammar and a dictionary.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is generated because it's not clear what is
language
and
> >>>> what is dialect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Using dialect in some environment like Europa you could have
> >>>> differences between two closest town. The nuances are very strong
and
> >>>> the language is not stable
(there differences during the years
and
> >>>> influences).
> >>>>
> >>>> The Lumbard (
lmo.wikipedia.org) for example has got hundred
different
> >>>> dialects and not a
superlanguage officially recognized, and two
> >>>> different speakers of two lumbard dialect are not completely
> >>>> understandable each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ilario
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/10/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is a Wikipedia in the Sardinian
> >>>>>
language<http://sc.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A0gina_printzipale>le>.
> >>>>> It uses the sc ISO-639-1 code. What was known as Sardinian
became
> srd in
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> ISO-639-2. In the ISO-639-3 it was recognised as a
> >>>>>
macrolanguage<http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/scope.asp#M>#M>;
> >>>>> practically what was called Sardinian was split into four
> >>>>>
languages<http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=srd>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Italian government has officially recognised the Sardinian
> language
> >>>>>
> >>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>>> the "Limba Sarda Comune". This is in essence a
constructed
language
> as
> >>>>>
> >>>> it
> >>>>
> >>>>> tries to make one language out of the four
"dialects". One of
the
> >>>>>
> >>>> effects
> >>>>
> >>>>> has been that some people prevent others from writing in one of
the
> four
> >>>>> languages on the sc.wikpedia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The language committee of the Wikimedia Foundation has a
request
to
> >>>>>
> >>>> approve
> >>>>
> >>>>> a new language; one of the Sardinian languages, Sassarese with
ISO
> code
> >>>>>
> >>>> sdc.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There are two problems to deal with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - The "Limba Sarda Comune" is not recognised as a
language
> >>>>> - The proponents of the "Limba Sarda Comune"
reserve the
> >>>>> sc.wikipediafor their language
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This issue is political. The first thing that I understand when
you
> go
> >>>>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>>> the official website
<http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/>
is
> the
> >>>>> notion of identity and indeed, to create one Sardinian identity
it
> would
> >>>>>
> >>>> be
> >>>>
> >>>>> instrumental to have a unifying language. However, the map of
the
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sardinian
> >>>>
> >>>>> languages <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lingue_di_Sardegna_mod.gif>
> >>>>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>
> >>>>> clear, the island is divided in four.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that the language committee has as one of its rules that
> political
> >>>>> arguments are not accepted, there are a few conclusions that
we
> should
> >>>>>
> >>>> make.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 1. Sassarese can have a conditional approval
> >>>>> 2. We urge the proponents of the Limba Sarda Comune to ask
for
the
>>>> recognition of this newly
constructed language from ISO.
>>>>
>>>> I have had a chat with Debbie
>>>> Garside<
>>>>
>>>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_board#Debbie_Garside
about
>>>
>>>> all this, and I understand that it is necessary to apply for an
>>>> ISO-639-3 code before an IANA language code is likely to be
approved. At
>>>> least fifty published works in
the Limba Sarda Comune will be
required.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
