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

Fair enough; I'm not trying to argue with you on this, just trying to get
the picture straight in my own mind. And since there are only a small number
of language names (4) that need to be distinguished with " (macrolanguage)"
and " (individual language)", it is really not a big deal; I guess we can
just leave that issue to UI designers to deal with.

Mark

On Dec 8, 2007 1:36 PM, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  #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
>