Re: [Ietf-languages] Latin Sub tags

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:43 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Hugh,
>
>
>
> just this month, the setting for ISO 639 has changed.  The earlier
> independently managed parts are now understood to belong to ONE code, the
> identifiers of the elements of which may belong to different SETS which
> correspond to the earlier PARTS 1 to 5.
>
>
>
> The individual registration authorities have been replaced by a united
> Management Agency, in which the earlier RAs are represented.  I happen to
> be part of the committee of the MA.
>
>
>
> So from now on, any changes to ISO 639 are presumably better coordinated,
> as any new requests (most are expected to come in via the earlier registrar
> of Part 3) will be considered right away as concerning the code as a whole,
> and then the consequences for possible needs to update different subsets of
> the identifiers will be considered simultaneously.
>
>
>
> The change of the TYPE of entry from language to macrolanguage is not to
> be too complicated if a good case can be made (separately coded language
> epochs of a language may be a good argument for giving the language in
> question this status).  The change from language to language group, with
> the identifier to be moved from part 3 to part 5 may be more complicated,
> but each such request should be considered.
>
>
>
> If you (or anybody else here) need further clarification about this, I am
> willing to answer this off-list, in order not to spam this list with ISO
> questions.
>
>
>
> Best greetings, Sebastian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Hugh
> Paterson III
> *Sent:* Thursday, 30 November, 2023 13:29
> *To:* Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* IETF Languages Discussion <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ietf-languages] Latin Sub tags
>
>
>
> Has there been any discussion across the registrars for moving the
> management of codes between the registrars?
>
>
>
> For example, if new Latin tags/codes were submitted to iso639-3, and they
> were accepted, the registrar has already indicated that the normal process
> is to deprecate the current tag/code [lat].  WHAT IF, that current tag were
> to be assumed by the ISO639-5 registrar? In a sense by proposing new Latin
> language tags for old-classical-neo one would not be negating the current
> tag as the current tag has in essence been operating as a macro-language
> tag (in a hypothetical situation where these other Latin tags are accounted
> as languages). The assumption of deprecation seems erroneous to me. But
> maybe I’m not understanding an important part of the information standard
> management process.
>
>
>
> In the past we have seen tags removed/deprecated and then reactivated. So
> why can’t a tag move from single language to a macro-language where the
> macro-language is an entity/concept through time? Likewise why can a code
> move from representing a single language to representing a group of
> languages? Especially if that is how the tag has been functioning already?
>
>
> All the best,
> -Hugh
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:53 PM Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hugh Paterson III wrote:
>
> > Specifically though I am curious about the conceptual entities such as
> > Early Latin, Classical Latin, and Medieval Latin. These three eras are
> > well attested in Latin oriented scholarly literature. [...]
> >
> > In considering an application for these three varieties of Latin, the
> > time-depth boundaries for these three "varieties" are contested,
> > therefore I don't think that a variant tag relating to a time frame is
> > especially neutral or clear.
>
> If these three stages of Latin are in fact “well attested” (which they
> are), and their main distinguishing characteristic is temporal (as opposed,
> say, to other dimensions as described by Sebastian Drude), then any variant
> subtags *should* relate to time frames. Better that than inventing some
> bogus relationship.
>
> The assumption, of course and as always, is that these varieties warrant
> separate tagging; that is, someone has a need to identify or search for
> content in each of these varieties.
>
> > Some languages such as Greek have separate ISO639-3 codes for
> > different time depths: e.g., [ell] and [grc]. My understanding is that
> > this time based split was introduced to ISO639-3 via compatibility
> > requirements with ISO639-2 and time depth indication via ISO639-3 is
> > not a viable way to argue for the introduction of a "new language"
> > code to ISO639-3.
>
> Every language is different, and must be considered separately. The normal
> disagreements over what distinguishes a language from a dialect or other
> variety (don’t say it, John) become even less consistent when considering
> “old” and “middle” and “modern” varieties. Basically all linguists consider
> Old English, Middle English, and Modern English to be separate languages,
> but that might not be true for some other languages with “Old” varieties.
>
> ISO 639-2 has little to do with this. Numerous code elements for “Old” and
> “Middle” languages have been added to 639-3 that were not distinguished in
> 639-2.
>
> > Additionally, the ISO639-2 registrar could be approached to add these
> > as "languages" -- there is sufficient publishing in these "languages"
> > to meet the guideline ISO639-2 requirements. The result being that
> > they would be de facto introduced to the ISO639-3 set of codes.
> > However, I'm not at all sure that pathway really solves any long term
> > goals for indication of time depths. (Is the ISO639-2 registrar on
> > this list?)
>
> I don’t think the focus on 639-2 is well placed. A code element does not
> have to be added to 639-2 before it can be added to 639-3; it’s the other
> way around. The only updates to 639-2 now are to stay aligned with 639-3.
>
> > Type: variant
> > Subtag: peano
> > Description: Latino Sine Flexione
>
> Latino sine flexione is an odd bird: an auxiliary language wholly
> constructed by modifying a natural language. It is a variety of Latin, but
> of a different sort from Early and Classical and Medieval Latin, which
> evolved organically over time. Both types of language variety (and more)
> can be described by variant subtags.
>
> The correct process, if there is a question whether a “variety” is
> actually a separate language, is to propose it to ISO 639-3/RA *first*. If
> that proposal is rejected on the basis of being a dialect or other variety,
> then we can have that debate here, and in the vanishingly unlikely case we
> think we know better, we can register a 5- to 8-letter primary language
> subtag. The much more likely outcome is that we register a variant subtag
> (or none at all).
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>