Dear Gerard, [co-chair hat on] Unless you have a concrete suggestion re. one of the two LTRU documents being worked on, please refrain from cc'ing ltru at ietf.org (or at least mark your postings with [OT] (off topic)). Thanks! [I'm not responsible for ietf-languages at iana.org.] See below for a different interpretation re. sign languages. Regards, Martin. At 17:27 08/10/06, Lang G駻ard wrote: >Dear John Cowan, >5-Coming back to the proper interpretation in french of the english word >"language", I verified that from the beginning (Recommendation ISO 639 >[November 1967] "Symbols for Languages, Countries and Authorities// >Indicatifs de LANGUES, de pays et d'autorit駸", aFrom ltru-bounces at ietf.org Mon Oct 6 03:36:04 2008 Return-Path: <ltru-bounces at ietf.org> X-Original-To: ltru-archive at megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive at core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E232F28C1D8; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:36:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946583A6AB4 for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.937, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2wcpefNE2yO for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64F93A6AA4 for <ltru at ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id m96AZor5001491 for <ltru at ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 6238_8b333ef8_9392_11dd_8b9e_0014221fa3c9; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:35:50 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:52853) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S507347> for <ltru at ietf.org> from <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:28:37 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20081006185028.06fa4788 at localhost> X-Sender: duerst at localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:09:34 +0900 To: Lang G=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCcVMbKEI=?=ard <gerard.lang at insee.fr>, "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>, "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>, Lang G=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCcVMbKEI=?=ard <gerard.lang at insee.fr> From: Martin Duerst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <68723E6B2E0EDC4999504D17DDE8F94904AD07DB at S90X2HUB1.ad.inse e.intra> References: <BLU109-W535C06619B36AB95319120B33C0 at phx.gbl> <20081003152113.GU31839 at mercury.ccil.org> <68723E6B2E0EDC4999504D17DDE8F94904AD07DB at S90X2HUB1.ad.insee.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org, ltru at ietf.org Subject: [Ltru] [OT] Re: UNGEGN definitions and UNICODe Glossary of terms X-BeenThere: ltru at ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru> List-Post: <mailto:ltru at ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1016004233==" Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
Dear Gerard, [co-chair hat on] Unless you have a concrete suggestion re. one of the two LTRU documents being worked on, please refrain from cc'ing ltru at ietf.org (or at least mark your postings with [OT] (off topic)). Thanks! [I'm not responsible for ietf-languages at iana.org.] See below for a different interpretation re. sign languages. Regards, Martin. At 17:27 08/10/06, Lang G駻ard wrote: >Dear John Cowan, >5-Coming back to the proper interpretation in french of the english word >"language", I verified that from the beginning (Recommendation ISO 639 >[November 1967] "Symbols for Languages, Countries and Authorities// >Indicatifs de LANGUES, de pays et d'autorit駸", and with nd with strictly no >exception, ISO 639 systematically translated the english word "Language" by >the french word "langue" and not by "langage". This is also the case for >UNGEGN's Manual M58, that never uses the french word "langage". >So, I have absolutely no doubt that "langue" is the proper french >interpretation for "Language" inside ISO 639, as the general title of this >standard and as UNGEGN interpretation both prove. >And I maintain that, under this clear interpretation, "Sign languages" >should not be taken inside ISO 639. [technical hat on] I think it's very easy to come up with a different interpretation. [For the sake of exposition, I'm assuming that the documents were translated from English to French, but much of the stuff below also works in other scenarios.] When translating from English to French, 'langue' seemed the most obvious and precise term, and the translator simply either forgot about the existence of sign languages or checked the then-current actual list and didn't find any. The ideal thing to happen when a standard gets translated is that the translation detects some ambiguity. This could have happened in this case, the French translator asking back "Is this supposed to include sign languages or not; I have to know that in order to be able to translate correctly." As a result, there should have been some explicit text saying either that sign languages are included or excluded, which I guess doesn't exist. I think it's inappropriate, in this case, to conclude from the French translation 'langue' that this excludes sign languages. The chance that this translation was in essence the result of an oversight (not to blame the translator; it's essentially an oversight by everybody involved) is in my opinion at least as big, and leads to the (in my opinion) much more desirable result of including sign languages. >This is also reinforced by the fact that no "Sign Language" was present >inside the publications of ISO 639 (1988) or ISO 639-2 (1998), or even ISO >639-1 (2002). That may explain the choice of word by the translator, but doesn't prove any intent of coverage. >But, a collective "Sign Languages", with alpha-3 code element >"sgn" was added by ISO 639/RA-JAC inside ISO 639-2 on 2000-02-18 only, with >no corresponding alpha-2 code element. >This addition does not seem in line with the scope of ISO 639-2, whose "1 >Scope" writes : > " This part of ISO 639 provides two sets of three-letter alphabetic codes >for the representation of names of languages, one for TERMINOLOGY >applications, and the other for BIBLIOGRAPHIC applications...." >Moreover, ISO 639-5 (2008), that also uses "familles de langues" and >"groupes de langues", recognizes "sgn" as a group of languages, so that >ideally "sgn" should be suppressed inside ISO 639-2 to be only mentionned >inside ISO 639-5. I guess ideally, yes, but apparently the need to code sign languages was so strong (at a time when 639-5 didn't exist yet) that the relevant committees ignored this "detail". This may be taken as strong evidence that once the parties involved got aware of sign languages, they really thought they should be covered. >And in this case, there would be strictly no mention of >any form of "Sign languages" inside ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-2. That would make the French translation more 'correct' on paper, but it's still not clear whether it would match the (original) intent. Regards, Martin. > > >Bien cordialement. >G駻ard LANG > >"Lßo‘il n'y a pas de loi, >Il y a quand m麥e la conscience" > Publilius Syrus > (1er si鐵le avant J.-C.) > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no >[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] De la part de John Cowan >Envoyñ: vendredi 3 octobre 2008 17:21 >タ : CE Whitehead >Cc : ietf-languages at iana.org; ltru at ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 44, Issue 15 > >CE Whitehead scripsit: > >> However, "le tresor de la langue francaise" online >> (http://atilf.atilf.fr/tlf.htm) seems to largely strictly no >exception, ISO 639 systematically translated the english word "Language" by >the french word "langue" and not by "langage". This is also the case for >UNGEGN's Manual M58, that never uses the french word "langage". >So, I have absolutely no doubt that "langue" is the proper french >interpretation for "Language" inside ISO 639, as the general title of this >standard and as UNGEGN interpretation both prove. >And I maintain that, under this clear interpretation, "Sign languages" >should not be taken inside ISO 639. [technical hat on] I think it's very easy to come up with a different interpretation. [For the sake of exposition, I'm assuming that the documents were translated from English to French, but much of the stuff below also works in other scenarios.] When translating from English to French, 'langue' seemed the most obvious and precise term, and the translator simply either forgot about the existence of sign languages or checked the then-current actual list and didn't find any. The ideal thing to happen when a standard gets translated is that the translation detects some ambiguity. This could have happened in this case, the French translator asking back "Is this supposed to include sign languages or not; I have to know that in order to be able to translate correctly." As a result, there should have been some explicit text saying either that sign languages are included or excluded, which I guess doesn't exist. I think it's inappropriate, in this case, to conclude from the French translation 'langue' that this excludes sign languages. The chance that this translation was in essence the result of an oversight (not to blame the translator; it's essentially an oversight by everybody involved) is in my opinion at least as big, and leads to the (in my opinion) much more desirable result of including sign languages. >This is also reinforced by the fact that no "Sign Language" was present >inside the publications of ISO 639 (1988) or ISO 639-2 (1998), or even ISO >639-1 (2002). That may explain the choice of word by the translator, but doesn't prove any intent of coverage. >But, a collective "Sign Languages", with alpha-3 code element >"sgn" was added by ISO 639/RA-JAC inside ISO 639-2 on 2000-02-18 only, with >no corresponding alpha-2 code element. >This addition does not seem in line with the scope of ISO 639-2, whose "1 >Scope" writes : > " This part of ISO 639 provides two sets of three-letter alphabetic codes >for the representation of names of languages, one for TERMINOLOGY >applications, and the other for BIBLIOGRAPHIC applications...." >Moreover, ISO 639-5 (2008), that also uses "familles de langues" and >"groupes de langues", recognizes "sgn" as a group of languages, so that >ideally "sgn" should be suppressed inside ISO 639-2 to be only mentionned >inside ISO 639-5. I guess ideally, yes, but apparently the need to code sign languages was so strong (at a time when 639-5 didn't exist yet) that the relevant committees ignored this "detail". This may be taken as strong evidence that once the parties involved got aware of sign languages, they really thought they should be covered. >And in this case, there would be strictly no mention of >any form of "Sign languages" inside ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-2. That would make the French translation more 'correct' on paper, but it's still not clear whether it would match the (original) intent. Regards, Martin. > > >Bien cordialement. >G駻ard LANG > >"Lßo‘il n'y a pas de loi, >Il y a quand m麥e la conscience" > Publilius Syrus > (1er si鐵le avant J.-C.) > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no >[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] De la part de John Cowan >Envoyñ: vendredi 3 octobre 2008 17:21 >タ : CE Whitehead >Cc : ietf-languages at iana.org; ltru at ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 44, Issue 15 > >CE Whitehead scripsit: > >> However, "le tresor de la langue francaise" online >> (http://atilf.atilf.fr/tlf.htm) seems to largely agree wiagree with your >> definition of "langue" -- as something pertaining to the "tongue" or >> to things that remind one of a "tongue" (such as a "the tongue of a >> flame") > >Etymology is not a key to meaning. "Verbal communication" is communication >in words, and although sign languages don't involve the tongue, they >definitely have words. > >-- >John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan >Nobody expects the RESTifarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is >surprise ... surprise and tedium ... tedium and surprise .... >Our two weapons are tedium and surprise ... and ruthless disregard for >unpleasant facts.... Our three weapons are tedium, surprise, and ruthless >disregard ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Roy Fielding.... >_______________________________________________ >Ietf-languages mailing list >Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no >http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru at ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.