[Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situatation as example

[Leif Halvard Silli <[e-mail]>]

Peter Constable 2008-05-27 10.08:
 >>Behalf Of  Leif Halvard Silli:

>> However, finally I came to the conclusion, that an extlang 
>> approach is what I would have wanted for Norwegian. And
>> therefore I decided to vote for Extlang so that at least
>> other languages in similar situations could have the benefit
>> of it.



> And yet, not all other macrolanguage cases are similar 
> situations to Norwegian or to Serbo-Croatian.
> 
> So is it perhaps still the case that you might have voted 
> against Q1 and for Q2 without realizing that Q2 did not have 
> the same benefits for as many cases as you thought?


I am thankful for the Co-Chair who adviced against second 
guessing. I feel I've second guessed a lot. Never the less, I'll 
at least provide some thoughts as response, but under a new 
heading, as we were adviced.

Let's look at Sami. Those languages are not grouped under a 
Macrolanguage. But could the Sami language(s) be worth an upgrade 
to "Macrolanguage" situation?

Firstly, the encompassed languages of a Macrolangauge always share 
some lingustic "thing" that makes it possible to group them 
together - I suppose encompassed languages always share that much.

The Macrolanguage "thing", then, is that there is one or several 
Areas of Life where these languages are considered as one.

Hence, I wonder: We in Norway often speak about the Sami languages 
(plural) as just "the Sami language". So, for us, these languages 
are often considered as one thing. I therefore suppose that this 
qualifies for Macrolanguage status.

However, the Sami languages are not mutually intelligible, at 
least not generally. In Norway, though, Northern Sami is pretty 
much the dominating encompassed language. And since Norway is also 
  the place in Scandinavia - and likely also in Russia - were the 
sami population are "best off", in many ways, it perhaps has some 
dominating role also outside Norway. (Sami reindeer groups often 
moved/move accross the borders, anyhow.)

If, for simplicity, we say that samis all have a sami languag as 
primary languages, then as secondary language they might have 
Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Russian. The Samis in the Russian 
Federation will also eventually write their own languages in 
Cyrillic script.

Now, the million dollar question: Macrolanguage? Would it have 
benefitted them? And secondly, would it have benefitted these 
groups to have Extlang? And what about technially solutions - 
would the RFC and syntax rules stand in the way?

Answers:

1. Technical first: Currently, only Northern Sami has a twoletter 
subtag, 'se'. I think that for the Sami language to be "upgraded" 
to Macrolanguage, then the "se" tag would have had to be change 
meaning and become a Macrolanguage tag for all Sami languages. (I 
don't know if, historically, it has had such a broad meaning 
earlier?)

Would it be technical possible to upgrade 'se' to Macrloanguag 
tag?  If not, are there other ways to get an upgrade? (The whole 
Macrolanguage and Extlang thing becomes very accidental if the 
fact that 'se' has been registered long ago can be used against 
it, in this case.)

2. Macrolanguage at all Would it have benefitted the Sami to have 
a Macrolanguag tag? Well, should it not be much simpler for users 
and implementers if we could "catch" any Sami with the "se" tag? 
The Sami have, and try to foster a cross border Sami identity. 
They have a Sami flag used in all the different regions where they 
are present.  We can simply look at Norway: The smalles Sami group 
is very small. I think a Macrolangauge tag that catched also that 
group, would be good - for users and implementors.

3. Extlang: Thanks to John, I now understand language negotiation 
a little bit better ... Extlang would mean that 'se' would be used 
much more, all over. It would mean fewer and more general tags, 
which coudl be made more spesific by adding the extlang tag.

Would this be good? Yes, I think it would be good. I think it 
would be simpler and lead to more general but on the whole more 
correct tagging. (I think Addison made that point once.) I also 
think Sami people would like it. Then they could, via the use of 
the 'se' tag, browse Cyrillic Sami pagese in Russia via the 'se' 
tag for instanse.

If you have an thoughts regarding when it would be bad, then 
please provide them.

So, to answer your question, Peter: Yes, I see a value of 
Macrolanguage and Extlang also when languages are not mutually 
intelligble. And I knew this when I voted. Hence, the question of 
whether I would have voted the same way, does not apply.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru