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
- [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Don Osborn
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: [everson@evertype.com: The Language Su… Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: [everson@evertype.com: The Languag… Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Sukhjinder Sidhu
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Sarmad Hussain, Dr.
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Fwd: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Punjabi Abbas Malik
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi John Cowan
- [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Don Osborn
- [Ltru] Re: extlang Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang GerardM
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- [Ltru] Re: extlang Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Marion Gunn
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- VS: [Ltru] Re: extlang Erkki I. Kolehmainen
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips