> From: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no [mai=
lto:ietf-languages-

> bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> Rather, the debate is whether "gsw" represents only Schwyzer=
d=FCtsch
per

> se, or other "Alemanic" languages and/or dialects which
are not usually

> identified as Schwyzerd=FCtsch, such as Swabian. 

That is not under debate. The ID "gsw" denotes precisely one
individual language, which in English is commonly referred to as "Swiss
German".

What is under debate is the name "Alemanic". It is a name used
to refer to a collection of languages constituting a genetic subnode of
Germanic. For that reason, Mark feels it is not appropriate to list "A=
lemanic"
as a name.

I agree with Mark on the principle, that an ID should mean one thing only:
either it means an individual language, or it means a collection of languag=
es,
but it does not mean both.

But what is unclear to me is whether the lexeme "Alemanic" has
two distinct senses. Ethnologue indicates that the individual language
denoted by "gsw" is referred to by Germanic-speaking peoples
as "Schwyzerd=FCtsch" within Switzerland but elsewhere as "A=
lemanisch".
In other words, "Alemanisch" is a Germanic name for the individual
language denoted by "gsw". That suggests the possibility that
"Alemanic" might similarly be used with the meaning of that indiv=
idual
language.

If "Alemanic" is ever used with that sense, I think I can agree
with Mark that it is not commonly used as the English name for the individu=
al
language in question, whereas it is commonly used for the collection of
related languages. Thus, I will agree with Mark that it is at best misleadi=
ng
to list "Alemanic" as an English name for this individual languag=
e.

> Unless this thread has something to do with adding or changing an
entry

> in the Registry, I agree with Michael that it should be confined to

> LTRU, and will post any future comments only to that list.

This thread very much has to do with entries in the Registry and is really
out of scope for LTRU.

Peter Constable

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F

Ietf-languages mailing list

Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no

http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> 2.  "(Other)" indicating a collection code from 639-2
(others are 

> indicated by the word "languages").  These are indispensable
IMHO, if we 

> want to discourage use of collection-code subtags.

I no longer think we do, particularly.

> 3.  Country or region identifiers, such as "Ainu (Japan)"
or "Gimi 

> (Eastern Highlands)".  These simply cannot be removed, since
they 

> disambiguate two languages with otherwise-identical names.

I think it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of parenthetical

bits in 639-3 are of this type.

> 5.  General additional information, such as "Gaelic (Scots)"
or "Slave 

> (Athapascan)" or my favorite, "Interlingua (International
Auxiliary 

> Language Association)".  If it's really necessary, these
can probably be 

> removed without destroying the meaning,

These actually fall under the same rule as "Ainu (Japan)".  There
really

are two constructed languages called "Interlingua", namely "Interlingua

de IALA" (this one) and "Interlingua de Peano", also known
as "Latine

Sine Flexione".  Adding "(Scots)" to "Gaelic"
clarifies that it is not

Irish, which has frequently been called "Gaelic" in the past.
 I'm not

sure what the story is with "Slave (Athapascan)": perhaps it
is meant

to eliminate confusion with any languages or supposed languages of

slaves or former slaves.  The name of the language is pronounced with

two syllables, and is usually spelled "Slavey" these days, precisely
to

prevent such confusion.

To go on, "Egyptian (Ancient)" eliminates confusion with Egyptian

Arabic and Coptic; and "Ligurian (Ancient)" eliminates confusion
with

the unrelated current language Ligurian, a Romance language of the

Gallo-Romance group.

-- 

John Cowan    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan   <cowan@ccil.org>

    "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context.
 A telegram

    that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only
190 bits in

    5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a
legal document

    as any, even sans digital signature." --me

_______________________________________________

Ltru mailing list

Ltru@ietf.org

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F

Ltru mailing list

Ltru@ietf.org

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote on 12/13/2006
04:12:29 PM:

> Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com scripsit:

> 

> > Even IMDB, considered by many to be the world's most authoritative
source 

> > of film metadata, does not make proper distinctions between Irish
and 

> > Gaelic. (I'm not sure they use the term "Irish" at
all, so everything ends 

> > up as "Gaelic.") 

> 

> A quick look shows that IMDB does not distinguish between Irish and
Scottish

> Gaelic at all, merging them under the term "Gaelic".  (There
are probably

> no movies with Manx dialogue.)

> 

Exactly ... Admittedly a slightly different scenario,
but the fact that no one has noticed this problem on a fairly high-quality
site indicates a usability problem in understanding the distinctions between
the languages. While adding "Irish" to the list in the IMDB classification
interface might help, the best solution would be "Gaelic (Irish)"
and "Gaelic (Scottish)" IMHO. 
Of course, these language names could then be displayed
in the *browsing* interface as "Irish" and "Gaelic"
in keeping with Marion's suggested usage.
FWIW,
Karen