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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
> 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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>
>>> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org