[Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or language and dialect?]

[Ilario Valdelli]

No please, not Ethnologue.

Ethnologue is not a scientific source. It's a database but a "very"
original database with a lot of mistakes.

Ilario

On 9/11/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> When you want to know what languages are recognised for the Netherlands
> check out Ethnologue.. What is recognised by ISO as a language has a big
> emphasis on existing languages. You should not use the ratified versions of
> the ISO-639 as a basis for such an understanding.
>
> As to Belarus, this is a completely different story. What we call be-x-old
> would not be accepted as a new project by the language committee. It has
> been accepted as a different orthography by IANA. The Limba Sarda Comune is
> a newly created language that is made up of two Sardinian languages. It is
> unlikely that it will be recognised by IANA because it will first need
> recognition by ISO.
>
> It is exactly to prevent these kinds of essentially POV and political
> discussions that we are happy to associate what we accept with what is
> understood to be of an universal quality. We are also happy to include as a
> member of our committee someone who has experience with applying for
> language codes both for the IANA and ISO. The Wikimedia Foundation has in
> Debbie Garside a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's advisory board who is
> the head of research for ISO-639-6. The point being that we do get advised
> on the positions that we take.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=NL
>
> On 9/11/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
> >
> > > a) a language without an army
> > > b) a way of expressing orally that developed out of a language and that
> > > has some differences , for example in pronunciation, some expressions
> > > etc, even having the same basics when it comes to grammar (just to
> > > mention one example)
> > >
> > > So could
> > >
> > >     Campidanese (ISO 639-3: sro)
> > >
> > >     Gallurese (ISO 639-3: sdn)
> > >
> > >     Logudorese (ISO 639-3: src)
> > >
> > >     Sassarese (ISO 639-3: sdc)
> > >
> > > be dialects of the Common Sardinian Language? Well ... only from a
> > > logical POV this is not possible, because they were there long before
> > > the Common Sardinian Language was created ...
> >
> > I disagree with that form of reasoning. When looking at my own Dutch,
> > it was created in the 17th century based on existing dialects
> > (basically, Dutch can be defined as the language the
> > [[Statenvertaling]] was written in), but those dialects are considered
> > dialects of Dutch nowadays (there are some dialects that are
> > considered separate languages in Wikipedia, but the languages that
> > most influenced the official language are the Holland and Brabant
> > dialects, which are not). The question should be whether the 4
> > languages and the newly created official version are close enough to
> > be considered dialects of a single language. If that is the case, then
> > there's only one official form of the language, and using that is not
> > a strange thing to do.
> >
> > > In any case the code "sc" stands for the macro language Sardinian and
> > > not for the Limba Sarda Comune, so there is no reason why it should have
> > > the right to claim that code for the language.
> >
> > Just compare this with the Belarus situation: I don't think anyone is
> > disagreeing that be: and be-x-old: are two versions (whether different
> > orthographies, different dialects or something else) of the same
> > language. And it seems clear to me that that single language is
> > Belarusian. So be: is the language that includes both versions, and
> > following your reasoning there is no reason why be: should have the
> > right to claim that code for its language.
> >
> > There is no hard line between two dialects of the same language and
> > two different, related languages. As such, I don't have any trouble
> > with considering the same lingual entity at the same time a variation
> > of Sardinian and a language in its own right. We can be hierarchical
> > in that. And if there is a single formalized version for a language,
> > giving that version the code for the language as a whole seems like a
> > logical thing to do.
> >
> > --
> > Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>