RE: [Ltru] Punjabi

"Don Osborn" <dzo@bisharat.net> Wed, 14 March 2007 08:31 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HROtY-0006jJ-FB; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:31:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HROtX-0006fq-8n for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:31:39 -0400
Received: from 113166.kabissa.org ([72.32.199.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HROtU-0001OA-KS for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:31:39 -0400
Received: (qmail 9218 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2007 03:31:19 -0500
Received: from pool-72-75-33-113.washdc.east.verizon.net (HELO IBM92AA25595C4) (72.75.33.113) by 72.32.229.137 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2007 03:31:18 -0500
From: "Don Osborn" <dzo@bisharat.net>
To: "'Sarmad Hussain, Dr.'" <sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk>, "'Mark Davis'" <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>, <ISO639-3@sil.org>, <iso639-2@loc.gov>
References: <3B848F4FAFB98A43A09D301DAA62A77809F67254@host210-2-148-28.lhr.dancom.net.pk>
In-Reply-To: <3B848F4FAFB98A43A09D301DAA62A77809F67254@host210-2-148-28.lhr.dancom.net.pk>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Punjabi
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:31:10 -0400
Message-ID: <00bf01c76613$1f281200$5d783600$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcdmBk9SBHLb59XxTEKbi22s7x3VggAC01Xg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: efc5d1db3729b4b7031f1bb5f5a30ae3
Cc: 'Nayyara Karamat' <Nayyara.Karamat@nu.edu.pk>, 'Abbas Malik' <abbas.malik@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0093561446=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Not sure if this will have gone out to the list  given that Sarmad is not on
LTRU (unless he just subscribed). So I'll pass it on with one thought. His
question about the intended use is one I also tend to ask - if you're
classifying text, that might imply one kind of categorization of the
language(s); but if you're compiling a locale for localizing software, then
maybe a different and broader (or "macro") conceptualization is appropriate.
In each case, at least for the languages I'm more familiar with, you might
reasonably come up with a different answer and use of language coding.

 

Don

 

 

 

From: Sarmad Hussain, Dr. [mailto:sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:57 AM
To: Don Osborn; 'Mark Davis'; 'LTRU Working Group'; ISO639-3@sil.org;
iso639-2@loc.gov
Cc: Abbas Malik; Nayyara Karamat
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Punjabi

 

There are many more dialects of Punjabi, depending on the region within
Punjab in Pakistan.  What is spoken in Sargodha is much different from what
is spoken in Lahore, etc.  However, most agree that they are speaking
Punjabi.  There is some difference in vocabulary but real difference is in
the pronunciation.  If locale is to be sensitive to these dimensions of a
language, then multiple codes need to be put in.  However, if locale is just
identifying the language not the dialect (sub-language? as in some cases the
dialects may not be mutually understandable), then a singular locale would
do.  I am not sure what level locale is designed to serve?  Could anybody
else further elaborate on this?  I am cc:ing a couple of other people, in
case they want to comment.

 

We had looked at the written version of Punjabi in Pakistan (also called
Shahmukhi) for standardization purposes, and there seems to be less variety
at this level.  

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

  _____  

From: Don Osborn [mailto:dzo@bisharat.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:55 AM
To: 'Mark Davis'; 'LTRU Working Group'; ISO639-3@sil.org; iso639-2@loc.gov
Cc: Sarmad Hussain, Dr.
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Punjabi

 

Hi Mark. An addendum to your question would be what they write. Might there
be a pa-PK written standard? I don't know, just asking. 

 

I will take the liberty of cc'ing the question to Dr. Sarmad Hussein of the
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences in Lahore, who also
heads the PAN L10n project in Asia ( http://www.panl10n.net ), in case he
has any thoughts. 

 

Don

 

 

From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:12 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 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru