Hi,
Standardising on iso-639-2 one will find there "bat" code is for other
Baltic languages. I think it is normal and neutral to use it in such cases
like Latgalian, when it is not absolutely clear can it be considered a
dialect of other language or not.
Using codes like "lav-latg" is not neutral because it claims Latgalian a
dialect of Latvian - which is unclear and disputed claim.
The explicity of the Ethnologue on claiming Latgalian to be just a dialect
of Latvian without any further explanations can be caused by lack of
information (or interest?).
However, one can propose absolutely neutral code variants:
1. bat-ltg
2. bat-latg
3. latg
Variants 1 and 2 say only that it is Latgalian which is a Baltic language
(or variety).
If it is not still neutral enough, lets take variant 3 which says only
that it is Latgalian.
Regards,
Sullõv
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(a)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
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l