Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for variant language subtags for German dialects

[Mark Davis ☕️ <[e-mail]>]

I'd like to point out that BCP47 already allows for finer-grained
geographic associations via the sd key for geographic subdivisions of
countries. For example, de-u-sd-deby represents German as used in Bavaria;
en-u-sd-usma is English as used in Massachusetts. The script tag Zxxx can
be used for indicating dialects that are primarily spoken.

   - The upside is that these designations are extensive (thousands), and
   likely to be better supported by general-purpose software than are
   variants.
   - The downside is that like country boundaries, there may not be a
   subdivision that reasonably associates with a particular dialect.


Mark


On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:02 AM Sebastian Drude <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> Some thoughts on this.
>
> In ISO 639(-3), German is already now an example, perhaps the most extreme
> one, for a language which is covered by too many identifiers for variants,
> many of which are (and were even 150 to 110 years ago, when the classical
> dialectal surveys and maps were made) mutually intelligible at least
> between neighbouring variants or between them and standard German.  So
> asking for even more ISO 639 entries for German varieties is most certainly
> a no-go.
>
> I was under the impression that the "de/deu/ger" code element would cover
> German as a whole, including regional dialects, not just standard German
> (although it is not a macro-language code).  This is in accordance to ISO
> 639, clause 4.2.1.1: "Every language identifier in accordance with this
> document corresponds either to an individual language in its entirety with
> all its language varieties or to a language group."  (True, there is a
> discrepancy here between the Ethnologue
> https://www.ethnologue.com/language/deu/ and ISO
> https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/deu regarding this identifier; I take ISO
> as authoritative for us.)
>
> As to the tags which are now requested, I am not convinced that these are
> needed by a large user group, because the subtle differences between the
> respective dialects probably concern mostly spoken language, i.e., the tags
> would mostly if not exclusively be used for multimedia recordings.
> However, in recent times, since larger amounts of such recordings can be
> made, the dialectal differences have diminished due to constant intense
> diglossic contact with standard German, so that speakers are not any longer
> bilingual but master two variants (standard and regional) of the same
> language, and where the former distinct dialects (many of them once were
> mutually unintelligible, at least between the more distant ones) have faded
> into regional variants of standard German.
>
> As to ISO 21636, which has been mentioned here, its Part 2 (the
> description of the framework for identifying language varieties) is already
> published, and the two other parts (Part 1: vocabulary [terms and
> definitions], and Part 3: application) are in the final stages of being
> published; they past the last (FDIS) bullet in ISO last month with
> unanimous approval.  I understand some of you have access to the ISO
> documents.
>
> In ISO 21636, the different dimensions of linguistic variation which have
> been mentioned here (social class, time, degrees of formality, etc.,
> besides the spatial (geographical = dialectal) variation) are cleanly kept
> apart (although they obviously influence one another).  For the
> (geographical) space dimension, it is possible, as Doug showed for the
> BCP47 tags in his examples "en-US-engne-enboston" or
> "en-US-engne-ennwyork"*, to have two identifiers, one for a broader and
> another for a more narrow geographical variant, or to use the most specific
> variant.  I probably would prefer the latter, because using the more
> specific one implies the broader one, and I do not believe that ISO or this
> group should engage in settling dialectological questions about which is
> the correct hierarchical subdivision of a language or regional variant of a
> language, i.e., which hierarchy of dialects and sub-dialects etc. is to be
> applied.  The user could include that somewhere else in their metadata, if
> it is relevant.
>
> With some of you, I have chatted about how to implement / integrate the
> ISO 21636 framework into the BCP47 language tags; a system of subtags in a
> specialized extension seems to be a suitable solution.  With regard to
> identifiers for linguistic variation, the next greater point is to set up a
> system for registering individual values for each of the dimensions
> (possibly starting with the variant subtags which have already been
> established in the language tags by this group over the years).  Where such
> a system could be established is not yet clear;  perhaps it could be
> integrated in the procedures of this group so that the homogeneity between
> ISO21636 identifiers and BCP47 (extension) subtags would be guaranteed.
> Towards the end of this year I would like to take up this discussion (ISO
> 21636 and BCP47) again with those of you who are interested.
>
> Best greetings,
>
> Sebastian
>
> * as to Dougs comment: "although I doubt New Yorkers would identify
> themselves as part of New England": their own political/cultural etc.
> identification is irrelevant here.  Many times political/administrative
> boarders (or the self-identification or allegiances of speakers) do not
> coincide with isoglosses of geographical language varieties.  We are coding
> the latter.
> The question is whether there is something like a broader New-England
> variety of English, by which criteria, and whether the English of New York
> does meet these criteria to be considered as being part of it.  (That said,
> my understanding is that most current dialectological analyses of North
> American English would NOT include NY-English within New-England English,
> see for instance https://aschmann.net/AmEng or
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_English.)
>
> --
> Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica  ▪  Av. Perimetral, 1901
> Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530  ▪  Belém do Pará – PA  ▪  Brazil
> [e-mail]  ▪  [phone]  ▪  [phone]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Doug
> Ewell
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:16 PM
> To: Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>; John Cowan <[e-mail]
> >
> Cc: Lisa Dücker <lisa.duecker=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for variant language subtags
> for German dialects
>
> There is work being done at present on a new standard (ISO 21636, “A
> Framework for Language Varieties”) which might cover a lot of what Hugh is
> talking about, whenever it is finalized and published.
>
> Beyond that, it is always possible in BCP 47 to have both variant and
> private-use subtags at multiple levels, so that one could have some
> combination of:
>
> en-US-engne
> en-US-enboston *or* en-US-engne-enboston en-US-ennwyork *or*
> en-US-engne-ennwyork (although I doubt New Yorkers would identify
> themselves as part of New England) en-US-ennwyork-enmanhtn
>
> and the beat goes on, with any of the lower-level variants in these
> examples being replaced by private-use subtags:
>
> en-US-x-engne
> en-US-engne-x-enboston
> etc.
>
> As always, there is a two-edged sword when it comes to private-use coding
> elements. If a private code achieves widespread use, that is a good
> indication that the thing being privately coded needs to be assigned a
> formal code; but then it becomes increasingly difficult for users to
> migrate away from the private code, which then might have to be supported
> indefinitely.
>
> If it does not achieve widespread use, despite its existence being known,
> that probably means it was a wise decision not to assign a formal code.
>
> Language can be micro-analyzed down to a very fine level of detail, but
> the question must always be asked whether there is a broad need to
> interchange identifiers for different sub-sub-varieties. Many New Yorkers
> can distinguish English as spoken in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn vs. Queens, but
> would content in these varieties (not only on computers, and not only
> spoken) actually be tagged separately, by more than one individual or small
> research body, if the possibility to do so without private-use were
> available?
>
> I wish it were possible to know how people use BCP 47, and how people wish
> they could use it but either can’t, or don’t know that they can, similar to
> the way Unicode is able to use Google statistics to estimate which emoji
> are most popular.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
>
> From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hugh
> Paterson III
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 16:26
> To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lisa Dücker <lisa.duecker=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for variant language subtags
> for German dialects
>
> John,
>
> Can you help clarify how many sub levels are presumed in these sub-tags.
> For example, if we say that we assign a tag to ‘New England English’ does
> that preclude creating a tag for ‘New York’ and/or ‘Boston’ Englishes? If
> New York Englanish has a tag does that preclude a Manhattan English? If
> English is the language name and there is hierarchy in the geographical
> units does that create an assumption that the speech varieties are also
> hierarchical in their designation too? Or is it all flat and exclusive
> within the context of the sub-language level?
>
> Written varieties which have been debated in this forum (such as the
> German orthography) generally have dates associated giving them a time
> depth with dates usually based on implementation dates.  In contrast oral
> records and oral realities “on the ground” do not change with discrete
> dates. For example, New York English “on the ground” doesn’t generally
> sound like Bernie Sanders or Christopher Walken.  That is they represent
> Brooklyn/queens New York English they represent a certain time depth and
> social class which may have been dominant at one point for the speech they
> represent. However, Even the same social class and racial backgrounds don’t
> sound the same today with younger generations. How do we model time depth
> for archival oral materials via sub tags?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>