Re: Montenegrin

> This is being requested through the JAC, not through ISO 639-3/RA, correct?

The request was submitted to the ISO 639-2 RA.


> Is that a working model of the JAC, that once an error is made in disunifying language codes, the floodgates are open?

No. I gave a simplistic characterization. A better characterization of that POV would be, "There's a practical reality that distinctions between these varieties need to be made, and that should be supported in a uniform manner."


> Again, one would hope that exhaustion does not become an acceptable strategy for proposals.

I'm not concerned that exhaustion alone would become a sufficient criterion.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Montenegrin

Peter Constable wrote:

> The ISO 639-RA/JAC is processing a request from the National Library 
> of Montenegro to encode “Montenegrin” in ISO 639-2. This has been 
> requested before, but on previous occasions there wasn’t much support 
> for it. This time, though, the level of interest appears to be on the 
> rise.

This is being requested through the JAC, not through ISO 639-3/RA, correct? That would explain why it doesn't appear on the 639-3 change request pages.

The 639-2 process is less transparent than 639-3; there doesn't appear to be any publicly available repository of requests. Maybe that path was chosen intentionally.

> It’s not clear to me how the changing sentiment much is influenced by
>
> (i) Perception that this really is a distinct language.

I agree with Han Steenwijk on this: if they can demonstrate this within the applicable working definitions -- not with appeals to national pride or political independence, and not by citing the new letters that were invented specifically to lend credence to the "separate language"
argument -- only then should a new code element be granted.

> (ii) Feeling that it’s no more or less a distinct language than 
> Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian, and that it’s not appropriate to 
> bias against this one.

Is that a working model of the JAC, that once an error is made in disunifying language codes, the floodgates are open? I would hope not.
It's not a question of "bias against."

> (iii) Feeling tired of the issue and assuming there’s no real harm to 
> encoding, so we’ll be better off putting this behind us.

Again, one would hope that exhaustion does not become an acceptable strategy for proposals.

Mark Davis replied to the last point:

> I do believe the end result of giving their dialect a language code 
> will be counterproductive, since there is already a code for 
> expressing what they have: sr-ME.

Yep. It would be helpful if the community were required to indicate what it is about "sr-ME" that doesn't meet their needs.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&data=02%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C7a86f5aec6a24412e92e08d5100d4913%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636432571627183634&sdata=fq9HHeY29P0x%2FHZP8uKzi0728vRu3z91Z5h114bgV8Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages