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.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@gmail.com:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@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
I don't know whether it's any use for deciding what to include and what not to include as a language, but it is certainly interesting because it shows that the world 'language' as opposed to 'dialect' has, indeed, two wholly different meanings. On the one hand, 'language' is used for Abstand languages, which are _collections_ of dialects, on the other hand it is used for Ausbau languages, which are single dialects with a special status.
We do find this difference in Wikipedia too - where there is an Ausbau language 'within' an Abstand language, there will usually be a Wikipedia in the Ausbau language. If there is none, there is not a single dialect that can lay claim on the Wiki, and one tends to resort to a single Wikipedia with pages in several different dialects instead.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org