Hoi, Your whole point centers around your assertion that we standardise on ISO-639-2. This standard is rapidly being replaced because it is deficient.MANY languages are just not in there. ISO-639-3 warts and all is an immense improvement. With ISO-639-2 the bat code has been deprecated.
The point that you fail to understand is that the code is not for our own use only. By coming up with proprietary codes we lose the connection to what is done elsewhere. As much as anything it is important that what we do is connected.. We want to be found in Google for instance and to do this we have to have standardised language codes. With a lav-**** we have a better chance of finding the content that is in Latgalian. I am at the moment finding out how to find what dialects have what code.
The best alternative you proposed is latg because it is manifestly not an ISO-639 code. But as I explained it is a sub-standard option.
Thanks, GerardM
Sulev Iva wrote:
Hi,
Standardising on iso-639-2 one will find there "bat" code is for other Baltic languages. I think it is normal and neutral to use it in such cases like Latgalian, when it is not absolutely clear can it be considered a dialect of other language or not.
Using codes like "lav-latg" is not neutral because it claims Latgalian a dialect of Latvian - which is unclear and disputed claim.
The explicity of the Ethnologue on claiming Latgalian to be just a dialect of Latvian without any further explanations can be caused by lack of information (or interest?).
However, one can propose absolutely neutral code variants:
- bat-ltg
- bat-latg
- latg
Variants 1 and 2 say only that it is Latgalian which is a Baltic language (or variety).
If it is not still neutral enough, lets take variant 3 which says only that it is Latgalian.
Regards, Sullõv
Hoi, When you standardise on ISO-639-3 you will find that the bat code no longer is used. Slavic (other) is a deprecated code. It is therefore not a good idea to use it. The description of the Latvian entry at Ethnologue is explicit; Lagalian is considered a dialect.
When Latgalian's status as a dialect is to be disputed, I am quite happy to help. We are at this stage looking into how this can be done in a friendly but also linguistic way. It has to be clear to all that this is a lot of work and that the heavy lifting will have to be done by those who propose the change. In the mean time, the codes have there use as they articulate to others and particular to automated processes what the language is. When the codes that are used are a mess and are chosen for political reasons, you prevent this process from happening smoothly.
What is of relevance is what languages or dialects we choose for new projects. The codes used are a technical issue. When you make them more than that, it only becomes political and it does not help at all. I am opposed for all the above reasons and all the reasons that I have given before to any code that are not consistent with the standard. I am opposed to the creation of Latgalian under the code bat-ltg.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that belong to other languages.
When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's out of ignorance, not malice.
However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different debate -- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never will.
Mark
On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some method behind the madness.
Thanks, GerardM
Ray Saintonge wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> ScottL wrote: > > > The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an > official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that > language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should > not. Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable. Several > >
constructed
> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in > those > should be higher. For languages without a code there is still a > large > swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets > our > other criteria. > >
From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the
POV
is can be reasonably supported. Which means it should still be a case by case thing.
Absolutely. That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting point. . Ec
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