Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> Sun, 25 May 2008 11:38 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 6303D28C138; Sun, 25 May 2008 04:38:17 -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 3FEC328C138 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 04:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 kA8NV0Os0wpM for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 04:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakepoint.domeneshop.no (lakepoint.domeneshop.no [194.63.248.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0990528C147 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2008 04:38:14 -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 m4PBcAFk011481; Sun, 25 May 2008 13:38:11 +0200
Message-ID: <48394FA4.9050900@malform.no>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:38:12 +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>
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2A40FC3@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 02.51:
> > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of Leif Halvard Silli
>
> > How different the encompassed languages
> > are isn't necessarily relevant. The relevant thing is that they are
> > conceived as one language in some important areas. Education of some
> > sort is necessary to maintain intelligibility and command of more than
> > one encompassed language.
>
> 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 [...]

The wording "is needed" is one that I think Mark should take note of.

> 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. Certainly no claim is made in ISO 639
> that either is true. Whether or not either is true for any
> macrolanguage is an empirical question.



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.

The fragment I quoted above mentions 3 typical situations for when the 
Macrolanguage definition is suitable - listed here in my order of 
preference:

   1. Transitional socio-linguistic situation; (The
      Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin situation)
   2. Dominant encompassed language situation; (Arabic)
   3. A "common written form used for multiple closely-related
      languages" situation. (Chinese)

(The 2nd and 3rd sitution seems to float together, in my view. Well, 
even for the 1st situation - e.g. think serbo-croat-bosnian- - the 3rd 
("common written form") is very important there too. And, btw, when 
forced, I would place Norwegian in the first group.)

In both situation 1 and 2, I would use your words and say that we have a 
situation where "the encompassed varieties are mutually intelligible, or 
that there is any one encompassed variety that is intelligible to all 
the others".

In the third situation, Chinese, it seems partly to be the case - at 
least in China - that Mandarin is the lingua franca - thus we partly  
have a dominant language situation. The common written form is also very 
important, however, so that it perhaps serves as a "lingua franca" in 
itself.
-- 
leif halvard silli

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