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

Tue Sep 11 12:28:27 UTC 2007

Their European data appears to be taken from books, mostly from the
70s and 80s. Not "linguists working in the field" - I'm guessing they
actually do that for more "remote" or less well-documented languages,
like Arrernte.

Mark

On 11/09/2007, Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.