[Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ?

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Thu, 06 July 2006 17:29 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXff-0005Vv-1J; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:47 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXfc-0005SI-VG for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:44 -0400
Received: from pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXfa-0006a2-Lg for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:44 -0400
Received: from h-68-165-4-139.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FyXfZ-0002gg-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:42 -0400
Message-ID: <001201c6a121$e1c1b940$6501a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE08CB1597@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:30:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a
Subject: [Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ?
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>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

Would it make sense to add material on how tagging for sign(ed)
languages to the 3066ter effort being proposed?  If so, could
Peter's message be distilled down to a high-level sentence for
the charter discussion?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: "IETF Languages Discussion" <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

I had an hour conversation today with an SIL linguist that has been assisting teams working on sign language projects for a number
of years. We discussed various things, including the phenomenon of "signed-spoken-lang-X" varieties.

In thinking about how to construct tags for these languages, the crucial question in my mind is this (using "signed English" in the
US as an example):

Is signed English

1) basically English expressed in a different modality,
2) basically ASL with some kind of modification or qualification -- e.g. a dialect or register, or
3) a pidgin of English and ASL?

Whichever it is, we should tag it accordingly (and if three, then possibly code as though it were a distinct language).

I was thinking we might use a subtag "-signed" based on the assumption that (1) was applicable. I know understand that these
language varieties typically fall into (2), though perhaps sometimes into (3); generally these are probably best thought of as
registers of the relevant signed language. They typically use phonology and lexica from the sign language and impose elements of the
syntax (possibly including morphology) of the spoken language.

Thus, here's my thoughts on a good approach to tagging signed languages:

- We treat "sgn" as though it were a macrolanguage. (My contact said that really wasn't that much of a stretch.)

- We use ISO 639-3 IDs as extlang subtags together with a primary subtag of "sgn"; e.g., "sgn-ase" for ASL. All signed languages
(SLs proper, not the Signed English cases) use tags constructed this way.

- We generally treat varieties like Signed English as registers of the signed language they are associated with. Thus, the tag is
formed by adding a variant subtag to the tag for the sign language. Because there can be multiple varieties for a given sign
language/spoken language combination, registered variant subtags provide the necessary level of flexibility. E.g. something like
"sgn-ase-enexact" "sng-ase-enexact2" for SEE and SEE2; and "sgn-ase-esbaja" for the signed Spanish spoken in southern Baja
California (which is based on ASL).

- For cases of signed-spoken-lang-X that are pidgins, we treat these based on whatever general principles we adopt for pidgins. (I'm
not sure at the moment what that should be; the problem with pidgins is that they are transitional and not yet stable -- they may
stabilize as a creole or they may continue to mutate or they may disappear.)

This should give generally good results for matching algorithms. Having "sgn" at the start immediately sets apart the modality,
which will generally trump any other distinction in importance to the user. A request for "sgn-ase" will return results that include
(the hypothetical) "sgn-ase-enexact" and "sgn-ase-esbaja", which is likely to be reasonable: an ASL speaker is going to recognize
all or nearly all of the lexical items in either case and so will have about as much problem in comprehension as we'd expect from
dialect or register differences.

This is a preliminary take. I'm know my understanding is still limited, and that are likely to be several parts of what I've
outlined that need work and further discussion.

Peter Constable
Ietf-languages mailing list

Ltru mailing list