Thank you all guys. Somebody have already started what I am looking for.
On 18/10/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have an acceptable abbreviation? Or are you maintaining that it is not actually a language?
If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a new wikipedia to be formed.
If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some activists believe". Though an appeal to the processes of an external body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
SKL
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on
the
one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with
indicating
content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
considered
a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a difference and that we can do as we like.
Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
the
terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these
things
does not sanction that we continue to do so.
When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
use
that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to
do
this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When
this
happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It
is
to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current
practices
and work on amending the practices where needed.
The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic
one.
Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to
"recognize"
what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO
and
Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia. Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro, bat-smg, and map-bms.
This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
We are not perfect.
Mark
On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy zordsdavini@gmail.com wrote:
Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
have
iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
iso,
too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
When
Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
best
code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
proposer.
I'll tell him.
Arns
2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There are two issues.
- What/ is/ the code for the moment
- Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
because
this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
have
7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
become
part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
am
afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
Latvian.
I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
are
in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
what
it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
around.
There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
Florentine.
The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
for
Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to
us
to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
to
demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
Latgalian
to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
literature
and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be
a
Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
used
to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
it
is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage
I
am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
not
stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
imho
is a complete misnomer.
Thanks, GerardM
Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
second
official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
there
are
very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
It's
dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
Arns
2006/10/17, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
> Hoi, > The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
however
> is > considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other". > > http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav > http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 10/17/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote: > >> On 10/17/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
my
> point > >> of >> >>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
proposed
>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
like
>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" .. >>> >> There's a test wiki at
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested. >> >> Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk :) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l