Re: [Ietf-languages] Latin Sub tags

[[e-mail]]

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The individual registration authorities have been replaced by a united Management Agency, in which the earlier RAs are represented.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] <mailto:[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 <http://ewellic.org>