Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> Mon, 26 May 2008 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F553A6978; Sun, 25 May 2008 18:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208F03A6978 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 18:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ADHVuFqF3oyX for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 18:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakepoint.domeneshop.no (lakepoint.domeneshop.no [194.63.248.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49B43A6841 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2008 18:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 10013.local (cm-84.208.108.246.getinternet.no [84.208.108.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakepoint.domeneshop.no (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4Q1snSj021992; Mon, 26 May 2008 03:54:50 +0200
Message-ID: <483A186A.6030908@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 03:54:50 +0200
From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1b1) Gecko/20060724 Thunderbird/2.0a1 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
References: <mailman.494.1210865385.5128.ltru@ietf.org> <00a901c8b6f5$c04529a0$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <30b660a20805161108w578b6cf9g11933ca34996a596@mail.gmail.com> <005901c8b787$930f98c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20805161309u67158b6arcb3b2df1c46db6a7@mail.gmail.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561554BEB09@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <30b660a20805161415kb1172f0xa6c4dea251344bb6@mail.gmail.com> <4832C21A.4050800@malform.no> <30b660a20805201344m22f0f40cmdfba059b0123e477@mail.gmail.com> <4834D693.10505@malform.no> <30b660a20805212357h1cb04c00k86a64ba6621151ab@mail.gmail.com> <48380784.7000001@malform.no> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2A40FC3@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <48394FA4.9050900@malform.no> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2A40FF4@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2A40FF4@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Peter Constable 2008-05-25 23.50:

>> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:lhs@malform.no]
>> > Please note very carefully: the definition of macrolanguage entails
>> that the range of varieties is treated as a single language in some
>> application context.
>>
>> Quoting 639-3: (http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/scope.asp#M)
>>
>> |...] considered distinct individual languages, yet in certain usage
>> contexts a single language identity for all is needed [...]
> ...
> 
>> > That does *not* entail that the encompassed varieties are mutually
>> > intelligible, or that there is any one encompassed variety that is
>> > intelligible to all the others...
>>
>> The strict definition might not entail this. But the empirical
>> investigation that lead a group of languages to be placed in a
>> Macrolanguage cathegory does most often entail it, it seems.
> 

> I think I know what the intent of the text in ISO 639-3 is
> better than anyone here, whether it reads the same way to all
> people or not. 


   [ ... ]


> comparison of ISO 639-2 and MARC with content being prepared for
> Ethnologue 15.


1. I suppose Ethnologue has som empirical basis?
2. Was it ISO 639-2 that came up with 'Macrolanguage'?

>> The fragment I quoted above mentions 3 typical situations for when the
>> Macrolanguage definition is suitable
> 

> "Typical situations in which this need can occur include the
> following..." These are three prototypical scenarios, but not the
> only scenarios. None of these three scenarios hold in several
> macrolanguage cases, including Quechuan, Zapotec, Cree, Ojibwa...

So, the typical examples that ISO 6369-3 mentions, are not 
typical, but exceptions. The largest, most well known, 
macrolanguages are to be ignored. And if there happens to be a 
large degree of inteligibility between them, then then it is an 
exceptional exception.

Ok. I better write it up in my fact book.

I just let it be known that I, unlike some others, have not taken 
part in this debate in the belief that all encompassed languages 
of a Macrolanguage are intelligible.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru