[Ltru] RE: New item in ISO 639-2 - Zaza

["Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>]

[moving my response to LTRU]

> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]


> >  It is not out of the question that new macrolanguage entities might
> >  get created in ISO 639, however, if there is a clear user need for
> >  such an entity. That was precisely what led to the addition at this
> >  time of a macrolanguage entity for Zaza.
> 
> Do you have the details?  I'd be interested to know just why a
> macrolanguage seemed appropriate (as opposed to registering the
> two encompassed languages separately in 639-2).

We got a request from a librarian. They specifically wanted an entry
that included both. (There was confusion at first about what they were
asking for, but when it got cleared up, it was clear they needed a
macrolanguage entry.)

 
> > My thought is: if a new macrolanguage yyy is added to 639 for which
> > there are macrolanguage mappings to some entity xxx that
pre-existed,
> 
> This is the Zaza case, correct?

A case like Zaza, yes. (Not in the Zaza case itself since we're not yet
in the 3066ter era.)


 
> > or if macrolanguage mappings are added to some entity xxx that
> > pre-existed
> 
> This case is entirely novel.  I understand it to mean that we find out
> that although Thwackian is as sharply divergent from both Northern and
> Southern Thuddian as they are from each other, nevertheless people
> in the Empire of Thud consider Thwackian just another local variety
> of Our Glorious Thuddian Language, and so 639-3 adds Thwackian to the
> macrolanguage "Thuddian".

(LOL) My first "thwack" on the head to follow this resulted in a "thud";
let me try reading it again.

OK, you're saying we have an existing macrolanguage "Thuddian" with
macrolanguage mappings to existing languages "Northern Thuddian" and
"Southern Thuddian", and now we add a macrolanguage mapping from
"Thuddian" to an entry (new or existing) "Thwackian".

That's not a scenario I was imagining -- haven't considered it, in fact.
I was thinking of a case like Rawang: for now, there's only one entry,
though we know it's highly likely it will get split out in the future;
we just haven't had enough info on the varieties involved to create
split entries yet. So, we have Rawang today as an individual language,
and at some future point we have X, Y and Z, either deprecating Rawang
or, probably more likely, with Rawang now as a macrolanguage
encompassing X, Y and Z.

Your "Thwackian" scenario might have some issues for 3066ter; the Rawang
scenario does not.


 
Peter Constable

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