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

Tue Sep 11 12:04:17 UTC 2007

sc? What does it stand for, besides Sardinian?

Mark

On 11/09/2007, Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
> >...the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> > language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> > request an own ISO 639 code.
> >>It is not an option to simply say:
> >now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is there
> stands for something else.
>
> Sabine is quite right... This would, indeed, be disastrous!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Debbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> > Of Sabine Cretella
> > Sent: 11 September 2007 09:25
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> > languages or languageand dialect?]
> >
> > Forwarding the post on my blog.
> >
> > Cheers, Sabine
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >
> > Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that question ...
> > and that is from the institution that cares about this
> > officially - the Region of Sardinia.
> >
> > When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the actual
> > Sardinian wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org> there is no
> > doubt that the language exists, but we must appreciate that
> > it is an artificial language that was created out of the
> > living languages of Sardinia. The website of the Region of
> > Sardinia
> > <http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:
> >
> > Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa Limba
> > sarda comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è in posizione
> > mediana rispetto a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora
> > essere migliorata per farla diventare la lingua ufficiale dei sardi.
> >
> > Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa Limba
> > sarda comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in an
> > intermediate position compared to all Sardinian dialects and
> > can still be improved to have it become the official language
> > of the Sardinian people
> >
> > So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8
> > per cent of it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not
> > natural. If I consider these percentages to what translators
> > work with every day, that is the "matches" we get in our CAT
> > tools, then 92,8 percent is a low percentage of being
> > "natural". It seems to be high, but in fact it is not ...
> >
> > Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for
> > example) and my analysis software tells me that the text is
> > up to 93% percent equal to another sentence I translated
> > before, this means that I cannot leave the sentence as is,
> > because I will need to change at least one word in the
> > sentence to make it a proper translation of what is there.
> >
> > Just to give you an example:
> > The house on the hill is green - that is what was translated
> > before. Now I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a sentence
> > like: the tree on the hill is green. If I left it as is: it
> > would state something completely different.
> >
> > You can also look at it like this:
> > The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100%
> > English The house on the hill is nice and vert. - that is
> > approx. 89 % English + 11% French (it is just a matter of
> > playing with the amount of words to get the 92,8%)
> >
> > So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is
> > considered to be built out of the "natural language part" it
> > is still an artificial language.
> >
> > But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that very
> > much depends from which POV you look at things. But ISO
> > determined some rules to understand what a language is and
> > what not. That is, before you can get an ISO 639 code for a
> > language you need to prove that this languabe complies to the
> > standard. Of course there are living languages that don't
> > have an ISO code, because up to now nobody cared for them - I
> > am just thinking about Griko Salentino, a language spoken and
> > written in Italy - but if people care about that language,
> > they will ask for it.
> >
> > What is a dialect ...
> >
> > 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 ...
> >
> > By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code,
> > they complied to the requests of the International
> > Standardisation Organisation
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and therefore, on an
> > international level they are considered to be languages even
> > with an ISO code.
> >
> > Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have
> > one, but these can request a code ...
> >
> > When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line
> > somewhere and this line should not come from us, that is: it
> > is NOT up to the members of the language committee to decide
> > what a language is or not.
> > We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one
> > was and still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to
> > complain and say that the four languages above are in fact
> > dialects of Sardinian and not languages, we should kindly
> > invite them to create their papers and contact ISO directly
> > to have the ISO 639-3 language code taken away ...
> > it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.
> >
> > Another thing people should then also consider to do: also
> > UNESCO states that these four languages are languages and
> > they are in the red book of endangered languages - so if
> > whoever states that they are not languages and he/she is so
> > sure about it: they should also contact UNESCO. It is NOT up
> > to the language committee to take such decisions as to delete
> > four languages out of the endangered languages list ...
> >
> > Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions
> > about what is and what is not a language come up ... well:
> > before you come to us, please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies
> > that deal with the question.
> >
> > We are only normal people that base their decisions on
> > standards and can tell people where to go to request their
> > code, but we can nor create that code, nor influence what is
> > recognised on an international level.
> > (Nor do we want to do that).
> >
> > Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at
> > the beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the
> > Sardinian languages, then someone came up and decided to make
> > sc.wikipedia a Limba Sarda Comune wikipedia only. Well: the
> > Limba Sarda Comune is being used by Sardinian Authorities to
> > facilitate their work.
> >
> > 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. That is the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> > language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> > request an own ISO 639 code. It is not an option to simply say:
> > now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one
> > that is there stands for something else.
> >
> > The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of
> > people telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a
> > dialect of Sardinian and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common
> > Sardinian Language) is the only "right language" of Sardinia.
> >
> > Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on Sassarese
> > and the other three being or not being a language - we rely
> > on ISO 639-3 codes since we had to draw a line and avoid to
> > simply assert things. It is not us who is going to decide if
> > the Limba Sarda Comune is going to get an ISO 639 code. If
> > you, who read this, are interested in this matter, it is up
> > to you to get things on their way.
> >
> > See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was one
> > of the wisest decisions ever taken within the language
> > committee ... imagine which fights (almost all political
> > based) we would have if we did not do this.
> >
> > Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:
> >
> > a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
> > b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
> > c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for
> > one language
> > d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there since it
> > could be used to create easily sustainable communities
> > e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is
> > a language or not (it has a code)
> > f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune
> > which does NOT have an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code
> > in an improper way.
> >
> > Thank you for your patience and understanding.
> >
> > --
> > Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
> > <http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassare
> > se-languages-or.html>
> > at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.