Hoi, When you standardise on ISO-639-3 you will find that the bat code no longer is used. Slavic (other) is a deprecated code. It is therefore not a good idea to use it. The description of the Latvian entry at Ethnologue is explicit; Lagalian is considered a dialect.
When Latgalian's status as a dialect is to be disputed, I am quite happy to help. We are at this stage looking into how this can be done in a friendly but also linguistic way. It has to be clear to all that this is a lot of work and that the heavy lifting will have to be done by those who propose the change. In the mean time, the codes have there use as they articulate to others and particular to automated processes what the language is. When the codes that are used are a mess and are chosen for political reasons, you prevent this process from happening smoothly.
What is of relevance is what languages or dialects we choose for new projects. The codes used are a technical issue. When you make them more than that, it only becomes political and it does not help at all. I am opposed for all the above reasons and all the reasons that I have given before to any code that are not consistent with the standard. I am opposed to the creation of Latgalian under the code bat-ltg.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that belong to other languages.
When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's out of ignorance, not malice.
However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different debate -- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never will.
Mark
On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some method behind the madness.
Thanks, GerardM
Ray Saintonge wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
ScottL wrote:
The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should not. Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable. Several
constructed
languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those should be higher. For languages without a code there is still a large swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our other criteria.
From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the
POV
is can be reasonably supported. Which means it should still be a case by case thing.
Absolutely. That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting point. . Ec