WORLDWIDE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Dear friend

Here is the place where you will find amazing things as is related to the language. I will recommend to read on
this website...  

http://www.worldwidesaleservice.com/id20.html

---
MAF Anti-Spam ID: 20060424132002G2s3IjF3

ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

Håvard Hjulstad <HHj at standard dot no> wrote:

> The ISO 639 RA-JAC has approved the following:
>
> Alpha-3 identifier (ISO 639-2): nqo
> English name: N'Ko
> French name: n'ko
> Indigenous name: n'ko

This brings up several issues related to the Language Subtag Registry:

1.  Adding a new subtag

A new primary language subtag, corresponding to this new ISO 639 code 
element, needs to be added:

Type: language
Subtag: nqo
Description: N'Ko
Added: 2006-05-21

This subtag is an automatic, guaranteed addition to the Registry, not 
subject to the discretion of the list or the Reviewer, as per Section 
3.3 of draft-registry.

(Incidentally, code element "nko" was not chosen because it is already 
assigned to "Nkonya" in ISO/DIS 639-3.)

2.  Spelling of "N'Ko"

In the ISO 639 RA-JAC announcement, the name "N'Ko" is spelled with an 
ordinary, ASCII apostrophe (U+0027).  There is already a script subtag 
(Nkoo) for the script called N'Ko, taken from ISO 15924, and in that 
standard the name is spelled with a so-called "smart" apostrophe 
(U+2019), as "N’Ko".  This is rendered in the ASCII-only Registry as 
"N&#x2019;Ko".

I really don't like the idea of spelling "N'Ko" two slightly different 
ways, one for the language and another for the script, simply because 
the source standards happened to differ in their use of apostrophes. 
Section 3.1 says, "Most descriptions are taken directly from source 
standards such as ISO 639 or ISO 3166," but there is no requirement to 
follow them precisely, right down to the style of apostrophe.  I would 
much prefer one of these two courses of action:

a.  Adopt the "smart" apostrophe, U+2019, for both language subtag "nqo" 
and script subtag "Nkoo".  This requires a tiny modification to the 
Description field in item (1) above.  It means that neither name can be 
typed directly from ASCII-only keyboard layouts, but remember that the 
Registry already uses non-ASCII characters in 13 other places, including 
two that are not in Latin-1 either.  (Expansion of the Registry in the 
future to include subtags based on ISO 639-3 will introduce hundreds 
more.)

b.  Adopt the "dumb" apostrophe, U+0027, for both subtags.  This 
requires us to modify the Description field of the existing script 
subtag "Nkoo", replacing "N&#x2019;Ko" with "N'Ko", in addition to 
approving the new language subtag.

In private communication, the Reviewer has indicated he prefers option 
(a).  Either (a) or (b) is acceptable to me, as long as one of the two 
is chosen.

The list needs to decide on this, and the Reviewer needs to make a 
ruling in two weeks' time.

3.  Suppress-Script

Michael has also stated, "The N'Ko script is overwhelmingly used to 
write the N'Ko language."  The question, then, is whether the record 
proposed in item (1) above should also include the following field:

Suppress-Script: Nkoo

I would suggest that Michael has done more research on the N'Ko language 
and script than all the rest of us put together ever will, and if he 
says that "Nkoo" is overwhelmingly used to write "nqo" then I have no 
reason to doubt him.  However, this is a matter for the whole list.

The list needs to decide on this, and the Reviewer needs to make a 
ruling in two weeks' time.

I will submit one or more modification forms to the Reviewer after items 
(2) and (3) have been resolved.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

Re: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> In private communication, the Reviewer has indicated he prefers option 
> (a).  Either (a) or (b) is acceptable to me, as long as one of the two 
> is chosen.

In that case let's go with (a).

> I would suggest that Michael has done more research on the N'Ko language 
> and script than all the rest of us put together ever will, and if he 
> says that "Nkoo" is overwhelmingly used to write "nqo" then I have no 
> reason to doubt him.  However, this is a matter for the whole list.

+1

--

-- 
John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan          cowan <at> ccil.org
Please leave your values                Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.                      check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia Vorkosigan

RE: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

+1 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 22 May 2006 04:35
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
> Subject: Re: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko
> 
> Doug Ewell scripsit:
> 
> > In private communication, the Reviewer has indicated he 
> prefers option 
> > (a).  Either (a) or (b) is acceptable to me, as long as one 
> of the two 
> > is chosen.
> 
> In that case let's go with (a).
> 
> > I would suggest that Michael has done more research on the N'Ko 
> > language and script than all the rest of us put together ever will, 
> > and if he says that "Nkoo" is overwhelmingly used to write 
> "nqo" then 
> > I have no reason to doubt him.  However, this is a matter 
> for the whole list.
> 
> +1
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan          cowan <at> ccil.org
> Please leave your values                Check your 
> assumptions.  In fact,
>    at the front desk.                      check your 
> assumptions at the door.
>      --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia Vorkosigan
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB

John Cowan wrote:

>>I think Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but useless 
>>when you want something authoritative (tbh, I think the autoritativeness 
>>of Encyclopedia Brittanica is often overstated too).
>>    
>>
>
>The study to which Debbie refers in a later message has been widely
>debated; personally, I think the fact that it only examined a few
>articles invalidates it on its face.
>
>In general, the concept of "authoritative source" makes little sense to me,
>except in personal contexts (I'm an authoritative source on what I
>had for dinner) and performative ones ("US" is the ISO 3166 code for the
>United States of America because 3166/MA says so and they are authoritative).
>Otherwise, no one source should be treated as an authority on anything.
>
>  
>
I personally think that a big value of Wikipedia is that it's very easy 
(AND encouraged!) to add pointers to outside sources. So one can start 
at Wikipedia and end up in places like the 3166/MA website. Much harder 
to do that from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

But we've now left the space of information relevant to ietf-languages 
far behind....

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - CS

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

RE: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

I'd like Michael to clarify why U+2019 is used rather than U+02BC.


Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:22 PM
> To: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
> Subject: Re: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko
> 
> Håvard Hjulstad <HHj at standard dot no> wrote:
> 
> > The ISO 639 RA-JAC has approved the following:
> >
> > Alpha-3 identifier (ISO 639-2): nqo
> > English name: N'Ko
> > French name: n'ko
> > Indigenous name: n'ko
> 
> This brings up several issues related to the Language Subtag Registry:
> 
> 
> 1.  Adding a new subtag
> 
> A new primary language subtag, corresponding to this new ISO 639 code
> element, needs to be added:
> 
> Type: language
> Subtag: nqo
> Description: N'Ko
> Added: 2006-05-21
> 
> This subtag is an automatic, guaranteed addition to the Registry, not
> subject to the discretion of the list or the Reviewer, as per Section
> 3.3 of draft-registry.
> 
> (Incidentally, code element "nko" was not chosen because it is already
> assigned to "Nkonya" in ISO/DIS 639-3.)
> 
> 
> 2.  Spelling of "N'Ko"
> 
> In the ISO 639 RA-JAC announcement, the name "N'Ko" is spelled with an
> ordinary, ASCII apostrophe (U+0027).  There is already a script subtag
> (Nkoo) for the script called N'Ko, taken from ISO 15924, and in that
> standard the name is spelled with a so-called "smart" apostrophe
> (U+2019), as "N’Ko".  This is rendered in the ASCII-only Registry as
> "N&#x2019;Ko".
> 
> I really don't like the idea of spelling "N'Ko" two slightly different
> ways, one for the language and another for the script, simply because
> the source standards happened to differ in their use of apostrophes.
> Section 3.1 says, "Most descriptions are taken directly from source
> standards such as ISO 639 or ISO 3166," but there is no requirement to
> follow them precisely, right down to the style of apostrophe.  I would
> much prefer one of these two courses of action:
> 
> a.  Adopt the "smart" apostrophe, U+2019, for both language subtag "nqo"
> and script subtag "Nkoo".  This requires a tiny modification to the
> Description field in item (1) above.  It means that neither name can be
> typed directly from ASCII-only keyboard layouts, but remember that the
> Registry already uses non-ASCII characters in 13 other places, including
> two that are not in Latin-1 either.  (Expansion of the Registry in the
> future to include subtags based on ISO 639-3 will introduce hundreds
> more.)
> 
> b.  Adopt the "dumb" apostrophe, U+0027, for both subtags.  This
> requires us to modify the Description field of the existing script
> subtag "Nkoo", replacing "N&#x2019;Ko" with "N'Ko", in addition to
> approving the new language subtag.
> 
> In private communication, the Reviewer has indicated he prefers option
> (a).  Either (a) or (b) is acceptable to me, as long as one of the two
> is chosen.
> 
> The list needs to decide on this, and the Reviewer needs to make a
> ruling in two weeks' time.
> 
> 
> 3.  Suppress-Script
> 
> Michael has also stated, "The N'Ko script is overwhelmingly used to
> write the N'Ko language."  The question, then, is whether the record
> proposed in item (1) above should also include the following field:
> 
> Suppress-Script: Nkoo
> 
> I would suggest that Michael has done more research on the N'Ko language
> and script than all the rest of us put together ever will, and if he
> says that "Nkoo" is overwhelmingly used to write "nqo" then I have no
> reason to doubt him.  However, this is a matter for the whole list.
> 
> The list needs to decide on this, and the Reviewer needs to make a
> ruling in two weeks' time.
> 
> 
> I will submit one or more modification forms to the Reviewer after items
> (2) and (3) have been resolved.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - CS

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - CS

Peter Constable scripsit:

> I presume there are no differences between Serbian (or other languages)
> as spoken/written in Serbia vs. Montenegro, so one might try to argue
> that documents with that tag are still acceptably tagged - in other
> words, for purposes of language distinctions CS in the context a
> language tag xx-CS would effectively continue to mean "Serbia and
> Montenagro".

Supposedly the Language Without A Name is spoken using ijekavian forms in
Montenegro, but with typically Serbian lexical choices.  So there is some
difference.

--

-- 
John Cowan  cowan <at> ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
        --Gerald Holton