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

[Debbie Garside]

Essentially Ethnologue is built from data compiled from linguists working in
the field.  Although, as with every database, there will always be some
errors and also shifting of opinions upon further research, Ethnologue is
recognised as one of the top publications.

Best wishes

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of Ilario Valdelli
> Sent: 11 September 2007 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> languages orlanguage and dialect?]
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>