Re: [Ltru] Punjabi

> That was probably more than you were expecting.

More than I expected, or hoped, but great information. Ok, what we'll do is
use pa-IN, with no script, since it is customarily in Guru, and for what we
had as pa-PK, figure out what is most appropriate: I'm guessing pnb_PK once
we have 4646bis.

Mark

On 3/13/07, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  This seems a bit off-topic for the LTRU list; nevertheless…
>
>
>
> The easy part: "pan" in ISO 639-2 denotes the same thing as "pan" in ISO
> 639-3.
>
>
>
> Now the harder part (entailing agreement that pa-PK may not make much
> sense)…
>
>
>
> There's a small handful of remaining open issues that the JAC needs to
> resolve in how pre-existing entries in 639-1/-2 should relate to what was
> new in the draft tables for 639-3, all having to do with South Asia; this is
> one of them. Most (all?) of these cases are messy because names have been
> used in very inconsistent ways. E.g., it's not uncommon to use a label to
> mean the vernacular variety spoken in some region, even though there may be
> several vernaculars, not necessarily closely related, and the same label is
> applied to any and all of them (e.g., "Bihari").
>
>
>
> Here's the info I've compiled on this case:
>
>
>
> PROBLEM: ISO 639 has entries [lah] "Lahnda" and [pa/pan] "Panjabi". These
> two must be considered together.
>
>
>
> Corresponding to "Panjabi", Ethnologue lists three languages:
>
>
>
> - "Eastern Panjabi", or "Gurmukhi" is spoken primarily in the Punjab state
> of India, pop. est. 27,125,000;
>
>
>
> - "Mirpur Panjabi", or "Mirpuri", is spoken primarily in Kashmir, pop.
> est. 30,000; and
>
>
>
> - "Western Panjabi", or "Lahnda", spoken primarily in the Punjab province
> of Pakistan, pop. est. 45,000,000.
>
>
>
> "Lahnda" is also used in Ethnologue's language classification (derived
> from the Int'l Ency. of Linguistics) as the name of a genetic sub-group
> that includes Western and Mirpur Panjabi, but not Eastern Panjabi. In
> fact, the classification separates these at a higher level:
>
>
>
> Indo-European / Indo-Iranian / Indo-Aryan
>
>           Central Zone
>
>                    Bhil sub-group (19 languages)
>
>                    Domari
>
>                    Gujarati sub-group (9)
>
>                    …
>
>                    Panjabi sub-group
>
> ->                         Eastern Panjabi
>
>                    …
>
>                    Rajasthani sub-group (18)
>
>                    …
>
>                    Western Hindi sub-group (12)
>
>                    …
>
>                              Hindi
>
>                    …
>
>           …
>
>           Eastern Zone
>
>                    Bengali-Assamese sub-group (16)
>
>                    …
>
>           Northern Zone
>
>                    Central Pahari sub-group (1)
>
>           Northern Zone
>
>                    Nepali
>
>                    …
>
>                    Western Pahari sub-group (17)
>
>                    …
>
>                              Pahari-Potwari
>
>                    …
>
>           Northwestern Zone
>
>                    Dardic sub-group (27)
>
>                    Lahnda sub-group
>
> ->                         Mirpur Panjabi
>
> ->                         Western Panjabi
>
>                              …
>
>                    Sindhi sub-group (5)
>
>           …
>
>           Sinhalese-Maldivian (3)
>
>           Southern Zone
>
>                    Konkani sub-group (7)
>
>                    …
>
>
>
> That classification suggests that the level of closeness (genetically)
> between Eastern Panjabi (= Gurmukhi) and Western or Mirpur Panjabi is on
> an order similar to the difference between any of these and (say) Bengali,
> Nepali, Konkani or Sinhalese.
>
>
>
> Grierson used the term "Panjabi" for varieties spoken in "Eastern Panjab"
> (what is now the Punjab state of India plus the eastern fringe of the
> Punjab province of Pakistan). This would match Ethnologue's "Eastern
> Panjabi".
>
>
>
> Grierson introduced the term "Lahnda" (a Punjabi word meaning 'western')
> for varieties in "Western Panjab" (roughly what is now the Punjab province
> of Pakistan) due to their distinctness from "Panjabi", having significant
> differences from the latter while also much in common with Sindhi. "Landha"
> is not used by speakers of these varieties, though the term caught on among many
> linguists.
>
>
>
> Following Grierson's usage, "Lahnda" has been described as a cover term
> for a dialect chain between Sindhi in the south and various northern
> varieties including Western Punjabi, Pahari-Potwari and Hindko varieties.
> In terms of the classification scheme referred to in Ethnologue, this would
> likely include the languages of the "Lahnda" sub-group (possibly excluding
> Khetrani or Jakati), plus Pahari-Potwari (which is in a different branch
> of Indo-Aryan).
>
>
>
> Ethnologue lists "Lahnda" as an alternate name for "Western Panjabi".
> "Western Panjabi" appears to correspond to "Shahpuri", which Griersonconsidered to be "standard
> Lahnda" (Masica 1991, p. 18).
>
>
>
> The MARC Language Code List uses "Lahnda" for Western Panjabi, but also as
> a collective that appears similar to Grierson's usage. Comments from
> Milicent Wewerka suggest that MARC usage of [pa/pan] should be equated
> with Ethnologue's "Eastern Panjabi".
>
>
>
>
>
> I think it's pretty clear that a macrolanguage "Panjabi" that would
> encompass Eastern P. (Gurmukhi) with either or both of Western P. or
> Mirpur P. makes little sense linguistically. But language coding doesn't
> always get applied in ways that make sense linguistically, so perhaps there
> is some context in which a macrolangauge encompassing all three would make
> sense (though I don't think so). But note that as soon as you suggest a
> macrolanguage, then the existing entry lah comes into the picture.
>
>
>
> What was done in the draft table for 639-3 – now shipped – is to equate
> pan with Eastern Panjabi (Gurmukhi) and to treat lah as a macrolanguagecorresponding to the
> Lahnda genetic sub-group that encompasses seven languages – including
> Western P. and Mirpur P., but not Eastern P. That makes lah close to but
> not exactly the same as the way Grierson and MARC have used "Lahnda" (e.g.
> Pahari-Potwari is excluded).
>
>
>
> I think that there's little question that the right thing was done for
> pan, equating it with Ethnologue's Eastern Panjabi (= Gurmukhi). What is
> right for lah is a little less clear. Given existing MARC usage, it would
> not be appropriate to use it in the narrowest sense in which it is an alias
> for Western Panjabi. But it's not clear if a macrolanguage makes sense or
> if it should be a collection; and if a collection, what it should include.
>
>
>
> To come back to your specific question, "pa-PK" would mean Eastern Panjabi
> (= Gurmukhi) as used in Pakistan. It wouldn't surprise me if that language
> were used to some extent in Pakistan, but my understanding is that it is not
> at all the same language that is usually meant when referring to "Panjabi"
> in the context of Pakistan. If we want a macrolanguage for that, lah is a
> candidate, though the name may not make that obvious.
>
>
>
> That was probably more than you were expecting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:12 PM
> *To:* LTRU Working Group; ISO639-3@sil.org; iso639-2@loc.gov
> *Subject:* [Ltru] Punjabi
>
>
>
> I have a question about Punjabi. ISO 639-2 gives "pan" as Punjabi. ISO
> 639-3 divides Punjabi into three separate codes:
>
> pmu    Mirpur Panjabi
> pnb    Western Panjabi
> pan    Panjabi // called Eastern Panjabi in the Ethnologue.
>
> It looks from this that according to ISO 639-3, there is no macro language
> for Panjabi; Pakistanis don't speak "pan" (= "pa"), even as a macro language
> they speak something else. So a language pa-PK (or locale pa_PK) is probably
> a mistake. Is this a fair statement?
>
> --
> Mark
>
>

-- 
Mark