[Foundation-l] Sassarese and Sardinian

Tue Sep 11 01:41:13 UTC 2007

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 at 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 at gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> There is a Wikipedia in the Sardinian
> > >>>>> language<http://sc.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A0gina_printzipale>.
> > >>>>> 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>;
> > >>>>> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> > >>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> foundation-l mailing list
> > >>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.