The claim in Ethnologue is that the
language “Schwyzerdütsch” (aka “Swiss German”) is also
spoken in Austria, France, Germany and Liechtenstein although the name “Schwyzerdütsch” is not generally used in those places; that
the name “Allemanisch” is sometimes used in reference
to this language; and further, that this language is distinct from languages
known as “Swabian” and “Walser”.
That is the semantic that ISO 639-3 and
ISO 639-2 assume. I think this is consistent with your understanding and usage.
Now, I hear Mark saying that the name “Alemanic” is not used to refer to Swiss German / Schwyzerdütsch but rather is only used to refer to a range of
varieties of broader scope (a genetic sub-node, perhaps) of which Swiss German
is but one language. (Ethnologue shows Schwyzerdütsch
as being classified genetically in a branch of Germanic called “Alemannic”.) The ISO 639 identifier “gsw”
is *not* intended to refer to such
a collection of languages.
The only debate I see here is whether “Alemanic” is ever used to refer to the specific language
denoted by “gsw”.
On the one hand, we see Ethnologue use “Alemannic” in reference to the genetic subnode.
On the other, we see Ethnologue indicate that “Alemannisch”
is a name used to refer to the specific language also known as “Schwyzerdütsch” or “Swiss German”. It appears to me that
Mark’s comments amount to one of the following:
-
questioning
the claim that “Alemannisch” is used as a name for
the specific language denoted by “gsw”, or
-
a
request to clarify that, in listing “Alemanic” as an
English name for “gsw”, the intended denotation does
*not* encompass Alemannic languages other than the one known as “Schwyzerdütsch” or “Swiss German” (and perhaps other names)
If it is the case that “Alemannisch” is used in some places to refer to the
specific, individual language denoted by “gsw”, then
this is a good example for a problem that Gary Simons and I identified in a
paper back in 2000: the problem of clearly documenting what is the intended
denotation of a given language identifier. For, if “Alemannisch”
is used in this way, then it would seem that “Alemanic”
might actually be used in two different senses: one referring to an individual
language, and one referring to a collection of languages corresponding to a
genetic subnode of Germanic. But, “gsw” does not denote either of those semantics according to
the whims of a given user; it denotes just one of those semantics, viz. the
former.
(This is also a good example to show
that the objects of codification are not merely names but rather specific
concepts that are referenced by a given name – terms, not lexemes.)
So, then, how can the intended semantics
of the identifier “gsw” be clearly documented in ISO
639?
In the past, for parts 1 and 2, all that
was provided was a list of names. In developing part 3, the RA and I both felt
that this was not adequate. Formally, we could not include the various kinds of
encyclopedic information that might actually be needed to make it clear what
the intended denotation of a given identifier actually is (machine-readable
tables need to have a well-formed structure with clear semantics for each data
category). What we could add formally are attributes, of which we added two: scope
and type. So, the data tables for 639-3 show in particular that “gsw” has a scope of individual language. That at least
makes clear that the intended semantic for “gsw” is
not a collection of languages.
But even that is not sufficient: perhaps
the range of language varieties under the Germanic/../Alemannic
classification are being treated as a single,
individual language.
To overcome such limitations and to provide
clear documentation of the intended denotation for each identifier, the ISO
639-3 Web site gives, for each entry, a “more…” link to a page that shows additional
information for the given identifier, and that additional info includes not
only the formal attributes of scope and type but also links to external
sources, including sources of an encyclopedic nature such as Ethnologue,
specifically for the purpose of documenting the denotation.
So, if you want to know an ID in ISO
639-3 is intended to mean, don’t just look at the list of names associated with
that ID since names alone cannot guarantee that the intended semantic is clearly
communicated. Rather, go to the ISO 639-3 Web site, get a report listing the
given ID, follow the “more…” link to the documentation for that particular ID
and look at *all* the information
provided there, including the links to external sources. (You can get to these
documentation pages directly using URLs such as the following example, for “gsw”: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=gsw.)
Peter
From:
Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com [mailto:Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006
5:55 PM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Håvard Hjulstad;
ietf-languages <at> iana.org; iso639 <at> dkuug.dk; iso639-2 <at> loc.gov; LTRU Working Group;
Mark Davis; zaiitov <at> gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Alemanic &
Swiss German
Are we reading the same Ethnologue page? Ethnologue
seems to include the Austrian forms and mentions that certain dialects within
this language family may not be intelligible to speakers of other dialects.
I'm
not trying to be difficult -- today :) -- and certainly appreciate your
previous help in sorting out these issues, but I have circulated the codes
gsw-CH and gsw-AT to a fairly wide audience based on assumptions that seem to
be fairly well-documented on Ethnologue, my application, ISO's approval, and
various other resources that lump these regional dialects together. Does 639-3
should have a macrolanguage for this? If not, should it?
I'd
appreciate it if you could review your notes before acting on this suggested
change.
Best
regards,
Karen
|
Peter Constable
<petercon <at> microsoft.com>
11/30/2006 05:34 PM
|
|
To
|
<Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com>
|
|
cc
|
Håvard Hjulstad <HHj <at> standard.no>,
<ietf-languages <at> iana.org>,
<ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no>, <iso639 <at> dkuug.dk>,
<iso639-2 <at> loc.gov>, ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee
<ISOJAC <at> loc.gov>, LTRU Working Group <ltru <at> ietf.org>, Mark
Davis <mark.davis <at> icu-project.org>, <zaiitov <at> gmail.com>
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
|
|
I’ll have to check email to be sure, but my
recollection was that I had suggested to you that the category that was already
in the draft table for 639-3 might meet your need, and that category was the
one coded “gsw” with semantics defined in Ethnologue. Definitely the JAC was
incorporating into part 2 the item in the draft code table for part 3; I
believe that all along the JAC understood that to have the semantics of “Swiss
German” (or “Schwyzerdütsch”) – certainly I did, but again I’d need to review
discussions to be more certain.
Peter
From: Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com
[mailto:Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:51 PM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Håvard Hjulstad; ietf-languages <at> iana.org;
ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no; iso639 <at> dkuug.dk; iso639-2 <at> loc.gov; ISO
639 Joint Advisory Committee; LTRU Working Group; Mark Davis; zaiitov <at> gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
Peter,
I'm not quite sure your take on this represents what was on my ISO application.
The application draws attention to other regions where Alemanic dialects can be
found (see: "addinfo" section). I believe the French name typically
indicates a broader range of dialects as well:
> > This data was submitted on: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 19:08:00
> >
> > lang_in_eng = Swiss German, Alemanic
> > lang_in_fre = alémanique
> > ref_where_found_1 = http://www.ethnologue.com
> > lang_in_vern = Schwyzerdütsch, Schweizerdeutsch, Schwiizerdütsch,
> Schwyzertütsch, Schwizertitsch
> > ref_where_found_2 = ISO 639-3 DIS, http://www.ethnologue.com,
http://www.wikipedia.com
> > trans_lit =
> > evidence = AGICOA, the Association of International Collective
> Management of Audiovisual Works (Association de Gestion Internationale
> Collective des Oeuvres Audiovisuelles); 428 documents (audiovisual)
> >
> > http://www.agicoa.org
> > addinfo = 4,215,000 in Switzerland (1990 census). Population total
all
> countries: 6,044,000. Central, south central, north central, northeast,
> and eastern cantons. Also spoken in Austria, France, Germany,
> Liechtenstein.
Regards,
Karen Broome
Metadata Systems Designer
Sony Pictures Entertainment
310.244.4384
|
Peter Constable
<petercon <at> microsoft.com>
Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no
11/30/2006 02:59 PM
|
|
To
|
Mark Davis <mark.davis <at> icu-project.org>
|
|
cc
|
LTRU Working Group <ltru <at> ietf.org>,
zaiitov <at> gmail.com, iso639-2 <at> loc.gov, Håvard Hjulstad
<HHj <at> standard.no>, ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee
<ISOJAC <at> loc.gov>, ietf-languages <at> iana.org, iso639 <at> dkuug.dk
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
|
|
I can tell you that the intent of “gsw” is specifically Swiss German, and that
the assumption of having “Alemanic” listed as a name is that some people use
that label to refer to specifically to Swiss German. If the latter assumption
is incorrect (which appears to be what Mark is saying, then that is a change
that the JAC should consider.
But if Martin’s comment is the supporting
evidence, then I still find Martin’s comment to be unclear. It’s clear to me
what Mark is saying; it’s not clear to me if Martin is saying the same thing.
Peter Constable
From: mark.edward.davis <at> gmail.com
[mailto:mark.edward.davis <at> gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:07 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Håvard Hjulstad; iso639-2 <at> loc.gov; LTRU Working Group;
zaiitov <at> gmail.com; ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee; ietf-languages <at> iana.org;
iso639 <at> dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
Alemanic
refers to a broader group of dialects than "Swiss German" (aka
Schwyzertuesch) does. So listing them as it does is problematic; it's like
listing
ar Arabic; Egyptian Arabic
Personally, I don't care whether it is resolved to be
Alemanic (including Swiss German)
// which is what 639-3 seems to be pointing to
or
Swiss German (a particular variant of Alemanic)
// which is what the code (gsw) seems to be pointing to
But we need some clarity as to what is meant by the code.
Mark
On
11/30/06, Peter Constable <petercon <at> microsoft.com> wrote:
Martin's comment is somewhat vague: varieties
spoken on either side of the border are very similar, et "as soon as you
cross the border it's very clearly no longer Swiss German". Does that mean
that what is spoken across the border is clearly a different language, or that
the label "Swiss German" is clearly not used?
Peter
From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis <at> icu-project.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:00 AM
To: Håvard Hjulstad; iso639-2 <at> loc.gov
Cc: LTRU Working Group; zaiitov <at> gmail.com; ISO 639
Joint Advisory Committee; ietf-languages <at> iana.org; iso639 <at> dkuug.dk
Subject: [Ltru] Alemanic & Swiss German
ISO 639-2
(on http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php) lists the following:
gsw Alemani; Swiss German
alémanique
However, there is a "c" missing from Alemanic, and Swiss German is
not the same as Alemanic: Swiss German is a type of Alemanic, but there are
other types that are not the same as Swiss German.
Quoting Martin Duerst:
"Yes, Swabian is clearly Alemanic. Alemanic and Swiss German are not
the same. There are very close similarities between some dialects in
the north of Switzerland and across the border in Germany, but as
soon as you cross the border, it's very clearly no longer Swiss
German. A label such as "Alemanic; Swiss German", assuming that
both are the same, is clearly wrong. If it's something like
"Alemanic; includes Swiss German", that would be okay."
Can this be corrected so that it does not continue to mislead people?
Mark Davis
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
RSS Feed