Re: Ganda / Luganda

Caoimhin O Donnaile wrote:

> Isn’t this a widespread “problem” with (East-?)African languages,
> though, that they are commonly referred to with a prefix which means
> “language”, such as:
>
>   Swahili - Kiswahili
>   Bemba - ChiBemba (and Ichibemba, etc)

"Kiswahili" is already an additional Description field for Swahili 
('swh' the individual language, not 'sw' the macrolanguage). That one 
came from ISO 639-3.

OTOH, we don't have any alternative names for either Bemba (Zambia or 
DRC). If there is evidence that the speakers of one of these languages 
call it "ChiBemba" instead of "Bemba", even while speaking English, then 
we should consider that too. That was the premise behind having both 
"Bengali" and "Bangla." It has nothing to do with what the name of that 
language is *in Bengali*.

> How pro-active should we be in adding these alternatives to the
> Description field?

I don't want to be proactive at all if that means "adding a Description 
field on speculation that someone may want it some day." Someone is 
already asking for it, via CLDR.

I'm not trying to add endonyms for their own sake. Again, there seems to 
be evidence that people actually do refer to this language as "Luganda," 
and DO NOT refer to it as "Ganda," even while speaking English.

> I suppose the prefix is more de rigeur when the word without the 
> prefix
> could also refer to a people or country rather than a language.

That could be a factor as well. The Luganda language is spoken by the 
Baganda people in the Buganda region of Uganda.

> (I have only very limitied knowledge myself of African languages)

As do I.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages