RE: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

#4 is *not* empty; but your classifications are too simplistic for the actual data. In particular, I consider the assumption that if there is a genetic relationship and one is in 639-2 that therefore it should be a macrolanguage to be invalid.

Potential cases of languages

-          with the same

-          genetically related

-          one is in 639-2 but is not a macrolanguage encompassing the other(s)

include the following (item in 639-2 listed first):

bas vs. bzw: These are two Niger-Congo languages separated at a genetic level that encompasses 961 languages.

bem vs. bey: These are two Bantoid languages separated at a genetic level that encompasses 513 languages.

fan vs. fak: These are two Bantoid languages separated at a genetic level that encompasses 659 languages

luo vs. luw: luw is not yet classified, so this pair may or may not fit the criteria. They are not regionally contiguous. Also, luw is all but extinct (known speaker population = 1), so there’s likely no body of documents, and hence no useful reason to consider it encompassed by luo.

Now, in the first three cases, geographic proximity might provide a basis to say that a macrolanguage is appropriate in spite of the genetic distance. But because of the distance it’s really a stretch to suppose that anyone would find it useful to tag documents from the two varieties the same.

Peter

From: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 12:07 PM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Doug Ewell; LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

Sorry. What I mean is, when you look at the list I sent out, there are lots of duplicate names, like Mari, Konkani, Kare, etc. Some of those have macrolanguage relationships (like Mari), and some don't (like Ainu). There are 4 possible classes of duplicates:

1. They have no genetic relationship, thus there is no macrolanguage (Ainu)
2. They have a genetic relationship, but neither was in 639-2, so there is no need for a macrolanguage (Tonga?)
3. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so there is a macrolanguage (Mari)
4. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so one of them should be a macrolanguage but isn't. (??)

I wanted confirmation that #4 was empty.

Mark
On Dec 8, 2007 11:35 AM, Peter Constable < petercon@microsoft.com<mailto:petercon@microsoft.com>> wrote:

You're going to need to clarify that question for me to understand what you have in mind.

Peter

From: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com<mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com> [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com<mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Doug Ewell; LTRU Working Group

Subject: Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

I suspected as much. Is that the case for all the other duplicates that have one of them defined in 639-2?

Mark

On Dec 8, 2007 11:24 AM, Peter Constable < petercon@microsoft.com<mailto:petercon@microsoft.com>> wrote:

It is coincidental that an Altaic language spoken in China and an unrelated isolate language spoken in China both happen to have "Ainu" as their English name.

Peter

--
Mark