[Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The codes that will become RFC 4646 bis codes are ineligible for inclusion
> in the RFC 4646. They are scheduled to become part of the "BCP". From a
> linguistic point of view, the existing codes are incomplete and unusable for
> our purposes. The RFC 4646 bis will not only but also include languages. The
> languages are included in the ISO-639-3 exclusively. This list is the
> closest there is to a list only about languages.

ISO is a political organization, not an expert (in this case, a
linguistic) one. Relying on one political organization, when we are
talking about science, is stupid. I don't say that they are useful,
but it *is* stupid to follow blindly one political organization.

Fortunately, they are not the body which declares standards on
Internet. And, fortunately again, IEEE is an expert body. As well as I
am sure that they are reasonable enough to accept an advice which
Wikimedia would give to them.

> The point is that as much as possible the language committee should _not_
> deal with linguistic issues. It is inviting endless discussions that is a
> mix of politics, linguistics and pragmatics. Like today, the result will not
> satisfy anyone but will be the best result achievable.

There are some basic linguistic *facts* which ISO doesn't assume. At
the area of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
there are four different linguistic systems. But, only one covers all
three-four ISO codes: Shtokavian. Other three: Chakavian, Kajkavian
and Torlakian don't have their ISO codes, but they are much more
distinct from all five standards (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian,
Montenegrin and Serbo-Croatian). (So, yes, linguistically speaking,
there should be four Wikipedias at the linguistic area of those
countries, but not Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian, but
Shtokavian, Torlakian, Chakavian and Kajkavian.)

Also, I would like to ask you which Hainan (a Chinese island, south of
the Mainland) languages you would consider as possible Wikimedian
laguages? Let's say, two persons from their Tai-Kadai group came and
ask for two different projects? No ISO codes -- no Wikipedia? It is
really highly bureaucratic measure to deny to, let's say, half of
million of humans to have a project in their native language just
because official China is, also, a bureaucratic machinery which
recognizes just "Li people". (Fortunately, Li peoples were supportive
to communists and they are well protected now; except from
bureaucracy.)

There are a lot of such problems all over the world. While LangCom
made regulation in relation to proposals like Siberian or Zlatiborian
are, it is not there to forbid new projects because of some
bureaucratic rules, but to help to old and new Wikimedians with
expertise.

> When you state that no university will acknowledge Siberain or Zlatiborian,
> you will find that neither does the ISO-639-3. When three universities in
> their infinitive wisdom pronounce that something is a "language", there is
> no guarantee that the BCP will eventually pick this up. This is distinctly
> different from languages accepted by SIL for inclusion of the ISO-639-3. The
> "BCP" is committed to accept these languages..

When someone from IEEE wants to see what is a language, I am sure that
in 99% that person goes to Wikipedia :) So, I am sure that we have
enough of influence on IEEE and its auxiliary bodies :)

> So you are wrong when you think that the way we are going is inconistent,
> you are wrong when you think that we should accept what universities or the
> community have to say. When theirs is a compelling argument, they can make
> this argument to SIL and we are happy to follow.

Actually, I said that your (singular) arguments are inconsistent; I
didn't say that your (plural) positions are. It is reasonable to
expect that your positions may be changed, while I am not so convinced
in change of your arguments ;) (Unlike an ISO politician, which would
ask, firstly, their private interests, then their national interests,
and after them, some old academic who would say something about, let's
say, dialects gathered in the 19th century which describes the
situation from the 18th one.)

Where I am sure that I am right (while you are sure that I am not :) )
is that LangCom have to take a clear position: if you are willing to
be a mediator between the community and experts, you should behave
like that; and if you are willing to be a political body, you should
behave like that.

In the first case (and I am sure that LangCom's intention is this
one), ISO is far from any kind of relevant institution for language
diversity. Sorry to say, this is true for SIL, too. English Wikipedia
articles are much more relevant than both of those organizations.
(BTW, en.wp articles are more relevant than a couple of linguistic
encyclopedias which I read, too.) In relation to ISO and SIL you may
be sure only that there is some name in some area which some persons
use to name their language.