Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:lhs@malform.no]

> > 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 [...]
...

> > 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...
>
> 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.

I think I know what the intent of the text in ISO 639-3 is better than anyone here, whether it reads the same way to all people or not. As for the "empirical investigation that lead a group of languages to be placed in a macrolanguage category," I wonder what you might actually know about that. I happen to know exactly how the current macrolanguage categories got defined, and the only empirical part of it I'm personally aware of was mostly comparison of ISO 639-2 and MARC with content being prepared for Ethnologue 15.

> The fragment I quoted above mentions 3 typical situations for when the
> Macrolanguage definition is suitable

"Typical situations in which this need can occur include the following..." These are three prototypical scenarios, but not the only scenarios. None of these three scenarios hold in several macrolanguage cases, including Quechuan, Zapotec, Cree, Ojibwa...

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