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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Sabine Cretella
Forwarding the post on my blog.

Cheers, Sabine

-------- Original-Nachricht --------

Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that question ...
and that is from the institution that cares about this officially - the
Region of Sardinia.

When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the actual Sardinian
wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org> there is no doubt that the language
exists, but we must appreciate that it is an artificial language that
was created out of the living languages of Sardinia. The website of the
Region of Sardinia
<http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:

Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa Limba sarda
comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è in posizione mediana rispetto
a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora essere migliorata per farla
diventare la lingua ufficiale dei sardi.

Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa Limba sarda
comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in an intermediate position
compared to all Sardinian dialects and can still be improved to have it
become the official language of the Sardinian people

So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8 per cent of
it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not natural. If I consider these
percentages to what translators work with every day, that is the
"matches" we get in our CAT tools, then 92,8 percent is a low percentage
of being "natural". It seems to be high, but in fact it is not ...

Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for example) and my
analysis software tells me that the text is up to 93% percent equal to
another sentence I translated before, this means that I cannot leave the
sentence as is, because I will need to change at least one word in the
sentence to make it a proper translation of what is there.

Just to give you an example:
The house on the hill is green - that is what was translated before. Now
I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a sentence like: the tree on the
hill is green. If I left it as is: it would state something completely
different.

You can also look at it like this:
The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100% English
The house on the hill is nice and vert. - that is approx. 89 % English +
11% French
(it is just a matter of playing with the amount of words to get the 92,8%)

So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is considered to
be built out of the "natural language part" it is still an artificial
language.

But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that very much
depends from which POV you look at things. But ISO determined some rules
to understand what a language is and what not. That is, before you can
get an ISO 639 code for a language you need to prove that this languabe
complies to the standard. Of course there are living languages that
don't have an ISO code, because up to now nobody cared for them - I am
just thinking about Griko Salentino, a language spoken and written in
Italy - but if people care about that language, they will ask for it.

What is a dialect ...

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 ...

By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code, they
complied to the requests of the International Standardisation
Organisation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and therefore, on an
international level they are considered to be languages even with an ISO
code.

Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have one, but these
can request a code ...

When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line somewhere
and this line should not come from us, that is: it is NOT up to the
members of the language committee to decide what a language is or not.
We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one was and
still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to complain and say that
the four languages above are in fact dialects of Sardinian and not
languages, we should kindly invite them to create their papers and
contact ISO directly to have the ISO 639-3 language code taken away ...
it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.

Another thing people should then also consider to do: also UNESCO states
that these four languages are languages and they are in the red book of
endangered languages - so if whoever states that they are not languages
and he/she is so sure about it: they should also contact UNESCO. It is
NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions as to delete
four languages out of the endangered languages list ...

Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions about what is
and what is not a language come up ... well: before you come to us,
please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies that deal with the question.

We are only normal people that base their decisions on standards and can
tell people where to go to request their code, but we can nor create
that code, nor influence what is recognised on an international level.
(Nor do we want to do that).

Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at the
beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the Sardinian languages,
then someone came up and decided to make sc.wikipedia a Limba Sarda
Comune wikipedia only. Well: the Limba Sarda Comune is being used by
Sardinian Authorities to facilitate their work.

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. That is the Limba Sarda
Comune, like any other language in the world that wants recognition by
ISO must request an own ISO 639 code. It is not an option to simply say:
now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is there
stands for something else.

The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of people
telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a dialect of Sardinian
and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common Sardinian Language) is the only
"right language" of Sardinia.

Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on Sassarese and the
other three being or not being a language - we rely on ISO 639-3 codes
since we had to draw a line and avoid to simply assert things. It is not
us who is going to decide if the Limba Sarda Comune is going to get an
ISO 639 code. If you, who read this, are interested in this matter, it
is up to you to get things on their way.

See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was one of the
wisest decisions ever taken within the language committee ... imagine
which fights (almost all political based) we would have if we did not do
this.

Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:

a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for one language
d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there since it could be
used to create easily sustainable communities
e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is a language
or not (it has a code)
f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune which does NOT
have an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code in an improper way.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

--
Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
<http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassarese-languages-or.html>
at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andre Engels
2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:

> 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, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> 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.

Unfortunately, the language committee refuses to do that because it
would be "unfair", despite the fact that linguists can and have done
studies in intelligibility for certain varieties (although, I am
guessing, not those of Sardinia).

Instead, they choose to believe that anything assigned its own ISO
code must automatically be a separate language, and anything that does
not have one must be invalid and need to be deleted right away because
it is just a mutually intelligible dialect or a non-existant language
squatting a code that belongs to somebody else.

Standards compliance is a good thing, but there is a certain point at
which the enforcers of the standards become rabid and they have gone
too far.

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Bugzilla from nick1915@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Sabine Cretella
>
> What is a dialect ...
>
> 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)
>

You confuse "dialect" with "variant"...difference between language and
dialect is only geographical, difference between language and variant is
typological (common morphology, syntax and phonology)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
...having said that, Campidanese and Logudorese are both easily
intelligible to LSC, that is its intent. Anybody who speaks
Campidanese or Logudorese should easily and rapidly understand any
text written in it. Campidanese and Logudorese are not _that_
different.

Mark

On 11/09/2007, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > 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.
>
> Unfortunately, the language committee refuses to do that because it
> would be "unfair", despite the fact that linguists can and have done
> studies in intelligibility for certain varieties (although, I am
> guessing, not those of Sardinia).
>
> Instead, they choose to believe that anything assigned its own ISO
> code must automatically be a separate language, and anything that does
> not have one must be invalid and need to be deleted right away because
> it is just a mutually intelligible dialect or a non-existant language
> squatting a code that belongs to somebody else.
>
> Standards compliance is a good thing, but there is a certain point at
> which the enforcers of the standards become rabid and they have gone
> too far.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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, [hidden email]
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Hoi,
I am glad to hear it. It is however beside the point.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 9/11/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ...having said that, Campidanese and Logudorese are both easily
> intelligible to LSC, that is its intent. Anybody who speaks
> Campidanese or Logudorese should easily and rapidly understand any
> text written in it. Campidanese and Logudorese are not _that_
> different.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/09/2007, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the language committee refuses to do that because it
> > would be "unfair", despite the fact that linguists can and have done
> > studies in intelligibility for certain varieties (although, I am
> > guessing, not those of Sardinia).
> >
> > Instead, they choose to believe that anything assigned its own ISO
> > code must automatically be a separate language, and anything that does
> > not have one must be invalid and need to be deleted right away because
> > it is just a mutually intelligible dialect or a non-existant language
> > squatting a code that belongs to somebody else.
> >
> > Standards compliance is a good thing, but there is a certain point at
> > which the enforcers of the standards become rabid and they have gone
> > too far.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
You just remarked that "The Limba Sarda Comune is
a newly created language that is made up of two Sardinian languages".

It is not just legally, but in the minds of almost every speaker of
Logudorese and Campidanese that they are one language. If you ask them
what language they speak, they will not tell you "Eo faeddo su
logudoresu" or "Eo fueddhu su campidanesu", they will say they speak
"sardu". If you ask them what language the other speaks, the answer
will be the same.

Mark

On 11/09/2007, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am glad to hear it. It is however beside the point.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 9/11/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > ...having said that, Campidanese and Logudorese are both easily
> > intelligible to LSC, that is its intent. Anybody who speaks
> > Campidanese or Logudorese should easily and rapidly understand any
> > text written in it. Campidanese and Logudorese are not _that_
> > different.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 11/09/2007, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the language committee refuses to do that because it
> > > would be "unfair", despite the fact that linguists can and have done
> > > studies in intelligibility for certain varieties (although, I am
> > > guessing, not those of Sardinia).
> > >
> > > Instead, they choose to believe that anything assigned its own ISO
> > > code must automatically be a separate language, and anything that does
> > > not have one must be invalid and need to be deleted right away because
> > > it is just a mutually intelligible dialect or a non-existant language
> > > squatting a code that belongs to somebody else.
> > >
> > > Standards compliance is a good thing, but there is a certain point at
> > > which the enforcers of the standards become rabid and they have gone
> > > too far.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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, [hidden email]
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or languageand dialect?]

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by Sabine Cretella
Sabine wrote:

>...the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> request an own ISO 639 code.
>>It is not an option to simply say:
>now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is there
stands for something else.

Sabine is quite right... This would, indeed, be disastrous!

Best wishes

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Sabine Cretella
> Sent: 11 September 2007 09:25
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; [hidden email]
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> languages or languageand dialect?]
>
> Forwarding the post on my blog.
>
> Cheers, Sabine
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>
> Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that question ...
> and that is from the institution that cares about this
> officially - the Region of Sardinia.
>
> When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the actual
> Sardinian wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org> there is no
> doubt that the language exists, but we must appreciate that
> it is an artificial language that was created out of the
> living languages of Sardinia. The website of the Region of
> Sardinia
> <http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:
>
> Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa Limba
> sarda comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è in posizione
> mediana rispetto a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora
> essere migliorata per farla diventare la lingua ufficiale dei sardi.
>
> Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa Limba
> sarda comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in an
> intermediate position compared to all Sardinian dialects and
> can still be improved to have it become the official language
> of the Sardinian people
>
> So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8
> per cent of it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not
> natural. If I consider these percentages to what translators
> work with every day, that is the "matches" we get in our CAT
> tools, then 92,8 percent is a low percentage of being
> "natural". It seems to be high, but in fact it is not ...
>
> Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for
> example) and my analysis software tells me that the text is
> up to 93% percent equal to another sentence I translated
> before, this means that I cannot leave the sentence as is,
> because I will need to change at least one word in the
> sentence to make it a proper translation of what is there.
>
> Just to give you an example:
> The house on the hill is green - that is what was translated
> before. Now I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a sentence
> like: the tree on the hill is green. If I left it as is: it
> would state something completely different.
>
> You can also look at it like this:
> The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100%
> English The house on the hill is nice and vert. - that is
> approx. 89 % English + 11% French (it is just a matter of
> playing with the amount of words to get the 92,8%)
>
> So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is
> considered to be built out of the "natural language part" it
> is still an artificial language.
>
> But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that very
> much depends from which POV you look at things. But ISO
> determined some rules to understand what a language is and
> what not. That is, before you can get an ISO 639 code for a
> language you need to prove that this languabe complies to the
> standard. Of course there are living languages that don't
> have an ISO code, because up to now nobody cared for them - I
> am just thinking about Griko Salentino, a language spoken and
> written in Italy - but if people care about that language,
> they will ask for it.
>
> What is a dialect ...
>
> 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 ...
>
> By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code,
> they complied to the requests of the International
> Standardisation Organisation
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and therefore, on an
> international level they are considered to be languages even
> with an ISO code.
>
> Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have
> one, but these can request a code ...
>
> When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line
> somewhere and this line should not come from us, that is: it
> is NOT up to the members of the language committee to decide
> what a language is or not.
> We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one
> was and still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to
> complain and say that the four languages above are in fact
> dialects of Sardinian and not languages, we should kindly
> invite them to create their papers and contact ISO directly
> to have the ISO 639-3 language code taken away ...
> it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.
>
> Another thing people should then also consider to do: also
> UNESCO states that these four languages are languages and
> they are in the red book of endangered languages - so if
> whoever states that they are not languages and he/she is so
> sure about it: they should also contact UNESCO. It is NOT up
> to the language committee to take such decisions as to delete
> four languages out of the endangered languages list ...
>
> Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions
> about what is and what is not a language come up ... well:
> before you come to us, please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies
> that deal with the question.
>
> We are only normal people that base their decisions on
> standards and can tell people where to go to request their
> code, but we can nor create that code, nor influence what is
> recognised on an international level.
> (Nor do we want to do that).
>
> Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at
> the beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the
> Sardinian languages, then someone came up and decided to make
> sc.wikipedia a Limba Sarda Comune wikipedia only. Well: the
> Limba Sarda Comune is being used by Sardinian Authorities to
> facilitate their work.
>
> 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. That is the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> request an own ISO 639 code. It is not an option to simply say:
> now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one
> that is there stands for something else.
>
> The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of
> people telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a
> dialect of Sardinian and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common
> Sardinian Language) is the only "right language" of Sardinia.
>
> Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on Sassarese
> and the other three being or not being a language - we rely
> on ISO 639-3 codes since we had to draw a line and avoid to
> simply assert things. It is not us who is going to decide if
> the Limba Sarda Comune is going to get an ISO 639 code. If
> you, who read this, are interested in this matter, it is up
> to you to get things on their way.
>
> See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was one
> of the wisest decisions ever taken within the language
> committee ... imagine which fights (almost all political
> based) we would have if we did not do this.
>
> Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:
>
> a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
> b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
> c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for
> one language
> d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there since it
> could be used to create easily sustainable communities
> e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is
> a language or not (it has a code)
> f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune
> which does NOT have an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code
> in an improper way.
>
> Thank you for your patience and understanding.
>
> --
> Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
> <http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassare
> se-languages-or.html>
> at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or languageand dialect?]

M. Williamson
sc? What does it stand for, besides Sardinian?

Mark

On 11/09/2007, Debbie Garside <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >...the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> > language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> > request an own ISO 639 code.
> >>It is not an option to simply say:
> >now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is there
> stands for something else.
>
> Sabine is quite right... This would, indeed, be disastrous!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Debbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> > Of Sabine Cretella
> > Sent: 11 September 2007 09:25
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; [hidden email]
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> > languages or languageand dialect?]
> >
> > Forwarding the post on my blog.
> >
> > Cheers, Sabine
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >
> > Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that question ...
> > and that is from the institution that cares about this
> > officially - the Region of Sardinia.
> >
> > When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the actual
> > Sardinian wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org> there is no
> > doubt that the language exists, but we must appreciate that
> > it is an artificial language that was created out of the
> > living languages of Sardinia. The website of the Region of
> > Sardinia
> > <http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:
> >
> > Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa Limba
> > sarda comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è in posizione
> > mediana rispetto a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora
> > essere migliorata per farla diventare la lingua ufficiale dei sardi.
> >
> > Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa Limba
> > sarda comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in an
> > intermediate position compared to all Sardinian dialects and
> > can still be improved to have it become the official language
> > of the Sardinian people
> >
> > So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8
> > per cent of it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not
> > natural. If I consider these percentages to what translators
> > work with every day, that is the "matches" we get in our CAT
> > tools, then 92,8 percent is a low percentage of being
> > "natural". It seems to be high, but in fact it is not ...
> >
> > Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for
> > example) and my analysis software tells me that the text is
> > up to 93% percent equal to another sentence I translated
> > before, this means that I cannot leave the sentence as is,
> > because I will need to change at least one word in the
> > sentence to make it a proper translation of what is there.
> >
> > Just to give you an example:
> > The house on the hill is green - that is what was translated
> > before. Now I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a sentence
> > like: the tree on the hill is green. If I left it as is: it
> > would state something completely different.
> >
> > You can also look at it like this:
> > The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100%
> > English The house on the hill is nice and vert. - that is
> > approx. 89 % English + 11% French (it is just a matter of
> > playing with the amount of words to get the 92,8%)
> >
> > So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is
> > considered to be built out of the "natural language part" it
> > is still an artificial language.
> >
> > But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that very
> > much depends from which POV you look at things. But ISO
> > determined some rules to understand what a language is and
> > what not. That is, before you can get an ISO 639 code for a
> > language you need to prove that this languabe complies to the
> > standard. Of course there are living languages that don't
> > have an ISO code, because up to now nobody cared for them - I
> > am just thinking about Griko Salentino, a language spoken and
> > written in Italy - but if people care about that language,
> > they will ask for it.
> >
> > What is a dialect ...
> >
> > 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 ...
> >
> > By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code,
> > they complied to the requests of the International
> > Standardisation Organisation
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and therefore, on an
> > international level they are considered to be languages even
> > with an ISO code.
> >
> > Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have
> > one, but these can request a code ...
> >
> > When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line
> > somewhere and this line should not come from us, that is: it
> > is NOT up to the members of the language committee to decide
> > what a language is or not.
> > We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one
> > was and still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to
> > complain and say that the four languages above are in fact
> > dialects of Sardinian and not languages, we should kindly
> > invite them to create their papers and contact ISO directly
> > to have the ISO 639-3 language code taken away ...
> > it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.
> >
> > Another thing people should then also consider to do: also
> > UNESCO states that these four languages are languages and
> > they are in the red book of endangered languages - so if
> > whoever states that they are not languages and he/she is so
> > sure about it: they should also contact UNESCO. It is NOT up
> > to the language committee to take such decisions as to delete
> > four languages out of the endangered languages list ...
> >
> > Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions
> > about what is and what is not a language come up ... well:
> > before you come to us, please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies
> > that deal with the question.
> >
> > We are only normal people that base their decisions on
> > standards and can tell people where to go to request their
> > code, but we can nor create that code, nor influence what is
> > recognised on an international level.
> > (Nor do we want to do that).
> >
> > Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at
> > the beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the
> > Sardinian languages, then someone came up and decided to make
> > sc.wikipedia a Limba Sarda Comune wikipedia only. Well: the
> > Limba Sarda Comune is being used by Sardinian Authorities to
> > facilitate their work.
> >
> > 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. That is the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other
> > language in the world that wants recognition by ISO must
> > request an own ISO 639 code. It is not an option to simply say:
> > now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one
> > that is there stands for something else.
> >
> > The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of
> > people telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a
> > dialect of Sardinian and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common
> > Sardinian Language) is the only "right language" of Sardinia.
> >
> > Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on Sassarese
> > and the other three being or not being a language - we rely
> > on ISO 639-3 codes since we had to draw a line and avoid to
> > simply assert things. It is not us who is going to decide if
> > the Limba Sarda Comune is going to get an ISO 639 code. If
> > you, who read this, are interested in this matter, it is up
> > to you to get things on their way.
> >
> > See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was one
> > of the wisest decisions ever taken within the language
> > committee ... imagine which fights (almost all political
> > based) we would have if we did not do this.
> >
> > Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:
> >
> > a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
> > b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
> > c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for
> > one language
> > d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there since it
> > could be used to create easily sustainable communities
> > e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is
> > a language or not (it has a code)
> > f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune
> > which does NOT have an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code
> > in an improper way.
> >
> > Thank you for your patience and understanding.
> >
> > --
> > Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
> > <http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassare
> > se-languages-or.html>
> > at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
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: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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, [hidden email]
> > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or languageand dialect?]

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Identifier: srd
Name: Sardinian
Status: Active
Code sets:  639-2 and 639-3
Equivalent:  639-1: sc

Scope: Macrolanguage
Type: Living

The individual languages within this macrolanguage are:

Campidanese Sardinian [sro]
Gallurese Sardinian [sdn]
Logudorese Sardinian [src]
Sassarese Sardinian [sdc]

Best regards


Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Williamson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 11 September 2007 13:04
> To: [hidden email]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> languages or languageand dialect?]
>
> sc? What does it stand for, besides Sardinian?
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/09/2007, Debbie Garside <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >...the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other  language in the
> world that
> > >wants recognition by ISO must  request an own ISO 639 code.
> > >>It is not an option to simply say:
> > >now let's take that one since it is there ... well the one that is
> > >there
> > stands for something else.
> >
> > Sabine is quite right... This would, indeed, be disastrous!
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Debbie
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> > > Sabine Cretella
> > > Sent: 11 September 2007 09:25
> > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List;
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese languages or
> > > languageand dialect?]
> > >
> > > Forwarding the post on my blog.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Sabine
> > >
> > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > >
> > > Well, there is a nice website that can help us with that
> question ...
> > > and that is from the institution that cares about this
> officially -
> > > the Region of Sardinia.
> > >
> > > When it comes to the Limba Sarda Comuna used on the
> actual Sardinian
> > > wikipedia <http://sc.wikipedia.org> there is no doubt that the
> > > language exists, but we must appreciate that it is an artificial
> > > language that was created out of the living languages of
> Sardinia.
> > > The website of the Region of Sardinia
> > >
> <http://www.sardegnacultura.it/linguasarda/limbasardacomuna/> states:
> > >
> > > Limba sarda comuna: una lingua realmente esistente: Sa
> Limba sarda
> > > comuna è naturale per il 92,8 per cento, è in posizione mediana
> > > rispetto a tutti i dialetti del sardo e può ancora essere
> migliorata
> > > per farla diventare la lingua ufficiale dei sardi.
> > >
> > > Limba sarda comuna: a language that in fact exists: Sa
> Limba sarda
> > > comuna is natural be 92,8 per cent, it is in an intermediate
> > > position compared to all Sardinian dialects and can still be
> > > improved to have it become the official language of the Sardinian
> > > people
> > >
> > > So they still want to improve the language ... nice ... 92,8 per
> > > cent of it is natural that means 7,2 percent is not natural. If I
> > > consider these percentages to what translators work with
> every day,
> > > that is the "matches" we get in our CAT tools, then 92,8
> percent is
> > > a low percentage of being "natural". It seems to be high, but in
> > > fact it is not ...
> > >
> > > Let's say I translate any kind of text (a sentence for
> > > example) and my analysis software tells me that the text is up to
> > > 93% percent equal to another sentence I translated before, this
> > > means that I cannot leave the sentence as is, because I
> will need to
> > > change at least one word in the sentence to make it a proper
> > > translation of what is there.
> > >
> > > Just to give you an example:
> > > The house on the hill is green - that is what was
> translated before.
> > > Now I get such a 92,8 per cent match with a sentence
> > > like: the tree on the hill is green. If I left it as is: it would
> > > state something completely different.
> > >
> > > You can also look at it like this:
> > > The house on the hill is nice and green. - that is 100%
> English The
> > > house on the hill is nice and vert. - that is approx. 89
> % English +
> > > 11% French (it is just a matter of playing with the
> amount of words
> > > to get the 92,8%)
> > >
> > > So what these 92,8% tell us: even if a huge part of it is
> considered
> > > to be built out of the "natural language part" it is still an
> > > artificial language.
> > >
> > > But what is a language and what is a dialect? Well: that
> very much
> > > depends from which POV you look at things. But ISO
> determined some
> > > rules to understand what a language is and what not. That
> is, before
> > > you can get an ISO 639 code for a language you need to prove that
> > > this languabe complies to the standard. Of course there
> are living
> > > languages that don't have an ISO code, because up to now nobody
> > > cared for them - I am just thinking about Griko Salentino, a
> > > language spoken and written in Italy - but if people care
> about that
> > > language, they will ask for it.
> > >
> > > What is a dialect ...
> > >
> > > 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 ...
> > >
> > > By having their ISO 639 code, when they requested that code, they
> > > complied to the requests of the International Standardisation
> > > Organisation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO> and
> therefore, on an
> > > international level they are considered to be languages
> even with an
> > > ISO code.
> > >
> > > Please let me repeat: there are languages that don't have
> one, but
> > > these can request a code ...
> > >
> > > When it comes to the language committee we had to draw a line
> > > somewhere and this line should not come from us, that is:
> it is NOT
> > > up to the members of the language committee to decide what a
> > > language is or not.
> > > We needed some kind of standard to apply and the clearest one was
> > > and still is the ISO standard. So if somebody wants to
> complain and
> > > say that the four languages above are in fact dialects of
> Sardinian
> > > and not languages, we should kindly invite them to create their
> > > papers and contact ISO directly to have the ISO 639-3
> language code
> > > taken away ...
> > > it is NOT up to the language committee to take such decisions.
> > >
> > > Another thing people should then also consider to do: also UNESCO
> > > states that these four languages are languages and they
> are in the
> > > red book of endangered languages - so if whoever states that they
> > > are not languages and he/she is so sure about it: they
> should also
> > > contact UNESCO. It is NOT up to the language committee to
> take such
> > > decisions as to delete four languages out of the endangered
> > > languages list ...
> > >
> > > Sorry for me being so ironical, but: when such discussions about
> > > what is and what is not a language come up ... well:
> > > before you come to us, please go to the INTERNATIONAL bodies that
> > > deal with the question.
> > >
> > > We are only normal people that base their decisions on
> standards and
> > > can tell people where to go to request their code, but we can nor
> > > create that code, nor influence what is recognised on an
> > > international level.
> > > (Nor do we want to do that).
> > >
> > > Now to the question of sc.wikipedia ... I remember that, at the
> > > beginning, sc.wikipedia tried to host all of the Sardinian
> > > languages, then someone came up and decided to make
> sc.wikipedia a
> > > Limba Sarda Comune wikipedia only. Well: the Limba Sarda
> Comune is
> > > being used by Sardinian Authorities to facilitate their work.
> > >
> > > 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. That is
> > > the Limba Sarda Comune, like any other language in the world that
> > > wants recognition by ISO must request an own ISO 639
> code. It is not
> > > an option to simply say:
> > > now let's take that one since it is there ... well the
> one that is
> > > there stands for something else.
> > >
> > > The question of the actual sc.wikipedia came up because of people
> > > telling us that Sassarese is not a language, but a dialect of
> > > Sardinian and that the Limba Sarda Comune (Common Sardinian
> > > Language) is the only "right language" of Sardinia.
> > >
> > > Well again: it is not us who is going to decide on
> Sassarese and the
> > > other three being or not being a language - we rely on ISO 639-3
> > > codes since we had to draw a line and avoid to simply
> assert things.
> > > It is not us who is going to decide if the Limba Sarda Comune is
> > > going to get an ISO 639 code. If you, who read this, are
> interested
> > > in this matter, it is up to you to get things on their way.
> > >
> > > See: the decision to base whatever we do on ISO 639-3 was
> one of the
> > > wisest decisions ever taken within the language committee ...
> > > imagine which fights (almost all political
> > > based) we would have if we did not do this.
> > >
> > > Just to make things clear - I repeat it again:
> > >
> > > a) we do NOT decide if something is a language or not
> > > b) we base our decisions on ISO 639-3
> > > c) we actually need a solution for various scripts used for one
> > > language
> > > d) we would love to see Multilingual Mediawiki there
> since it could
> > > be used to create easily sustainable communities
> > > e) we are not going to go ahead on discussing if Sassarese is a
> > > language or not (it has a code)
> > > f) we will need to find a solution for Limba Sarda Comune
> which does
> > > NOT have an ISO 639 code and is using the sc code in an improper
> > > way.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your patience and understanding.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Posted By Sabine Cretella to words & more
> > > <http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/09/sardininan-sassare
> > > se-languages-or.html>
> > > at 9/11/2007 08:53:00 AM
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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, [hidden email]
> > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Debbie Garside
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > 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, [hidden email]
> > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
...and they have an entry for Yinglish. Ask any expert in Jewish
languages ("the field") and they will tell you, as will Wikipedia,
that Yinglish is really more of a combination of borrowings and
various code-switching phenomena than it is an independent language.

Mark

On 11/09/2007, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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, [hidden email]
> > > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
2007/9/11, GerardM <[hidden email]>:
> Hoi,
> When you want to know what languages are recognised for the Netherlands
> check out Ethnologue.

It has improved since the last time I read it (there were 3 languages
in the Veluwe only, if I recall correctly), but still there is an
amusing difference in granularity between the Lower Saxon dialects of
the Netherlands compared to the lower Franconian (i.e. Dutch) dialects
and the Lower Saxon dialects of Germany. Still, even this list agrees
with the basic point I was making, namely that dialects can be
considered part of a language with a formalized form even when that
language is younger than the dialects themselves - looking at this
list, apparently the various Hollandic and Brabant dialects are
dialects of Dutch, even though they (or at least many of them) existed
before the 17th century.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
I never said that ISO or Ethnologue was perfect! :-)  Indeed, the field of
linguistics is such that within Standardization we just have to make a
decision - doesn't mean it is right!  Sometimes the decision is based on an
application need.  As with Klingon :-) Standardization and Linguistics are
both nightmare fields and not exact sciences - hence the problems we are
witnessing.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Williamson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 11 September 2007 13:30
> To: [hidden email]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> languages orlanguage and dialect?]
>
> ...and they have an entry for Yinglish. Ask any expert in
> Jewish languages ("the field") and they will tell you, as
> will Wikipedia, that Yinglish is really more of a combination
> of borrowings and various code-switching phenomena than it is
> an independent language.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/09/2007, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2007/9/11, Sabine Cretella <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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, [hidden email]
> > > > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
Languages, dialects, complexes and clusters etc. should be considered from
the bottom up... In most cases it is a combination of dialects that makes a
language - usually with one dialect being used as the preferred standard.

Thus languages are formed from dialects that can be much older than the
language itself but in creating a hierarchy it is easier to show the
dialects under the language.

Best wishes

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Andre Engels
> Sent: 11 September 2007 13:42
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Sardininan - Sassarese
> languages orlanguage and dialect?]
>
> 2007/9/11, GerardM <[hidden email]>:
> > Hoi,
> > When you want to know what languages are recognised for the
> > Netherlands check out Ethnologue.
>
> It has improved since the last time I read it (there were 3
> languages in the Veluwe only, if I recall correctly), but
> still there is an amusing difference in granularity between
> the Lower Saxon dialects of the Netherlands compared to the
> lower Franconian (i.e. Dutch) dialects and the Lower Saxon
> dialects of Germany. Still, even this list agrees with the
> basic point I was making, namely that dialects can be
> considered part of a language with a formalized form even
> when that language is younger than the dialects themselves -
> looking at this list, apparently the various Hollandic and
> Brabant dialects are dialects of Dutch, even though they (or
> at least many of them) existed before the 17th century.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Bugzilla from nick1915@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Debbie Garside
2007/9/11, Debbie Garside <[hidden email]>:
>
> Essentially Ethnologue is built from data compiled from linguists working
> in
> the field.


It is wrong

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.


It is completly wrong too, maybe is recognised as one of most controversial
publications

Nick
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12