Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>]

>Therefore, I
recommend that item #1033 be closed.

Strongly agreed.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
To: <ltru at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 00:05
Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed



> This has been assigned issue number [psg.com #1033]
>
> > From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>
> > To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:16 PM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Written Spoken Signed
> ...
> > An issue has been raised on the IETF with regard to the principle of
> > language tags for written, spoken (and signed) to be registered
> distinctly
> > as opposed to an "umbrella" tag that was perhaps designed initially
for
> > written but is now being used to cover all.
> >
> > As the draft for ISO 639-6 currently supports separate tags for
these -
> > language, written_language, spoken_language, signed_language -
perhaps
> it
> > would be prudent to incorporate some text and a mechanism within
3066bis
> to
> > support the registering of such specific tags.
> >
> > Personally, I believe that in the future there will be a real need
for
> > differentiating between them; it can only enhance archival and
retrieval
> > processes.

First, some clarification regarding signed modality.

Signed languages are distinct languages; as such, they should have their
own lang subtag, and indeed ISO 639-3 assigns such. American Sign
Language is not English expressed using signs rather than voice; hence,
a tag for "American Sign Language" could (and, IMO, should) take the
same syntactic form as tags such as "en" or "fil".

There is such a thing as a verbal language expressed using signs; e.g.
signed English. There may well be a need to have a tag to make this
distinction. I think a variant subtag for this purpose would be
satisfactory; e.g. "en-signed".

Now, re written vs. spoken language:

There can be varietal linguistic distinctions -- dialect -- between
written versus spoken forms of a language, and some user may have a need
for tags to reflect such a distinction. What must be understood is that
this such a distinction between linguistic varieties is orthogonal to
the mode of expression: verbal versus writing. Again, for the linguistic
distinction, variant subtags are a reasonable and appropriate. For the
distinction between modes of expression, Mark has pointed out that
"Zxxx" can be used as a script subtag to indicate that the information
is unwritten (hence assumed to be verbal).


The fact that the draft for 639-6 supports separate tags for language,
written_language, spoken_language, signed_language does not have any
signification implications for 3066bis, IMO: we are not designing
mechanisms to support 639-6 at this time, and the mechanisms in the I-D
are already capable of dealing with all such distinctions. Therefore, I
recommend that item #1033 be closed.



Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru