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

[GerardM]

Hoi,
The languages that are on this list are all recognised as part of the
ISO-639. SIL is the RA for the ISO-639-3.
Thanks,
    Gerard

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp

On 9/11/07, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>