"Christopher J. Fynn" wrote:
> I think a clear distinction may need to be made between those languages which
> are commonly written and those which are (largely) only spoken. Outside the
> realm of specialised applications for linguists, most applications currently
> only deal with written languages and scripts and it is only confusing (and
> storing up problems) to add codes for spoken languages and dialects to that
> list of tags.
What about metadata attached to audio objects? Surely the
most elementary fact about a non-musical audio object is what language is being
> Looking over the Ethnolouge codes for "Bodhic" languages it seems quite clear
> that most of the codes listed are for distinctive spoken languages and
> dialects - literate speakers of most of these languages have one
> written/literary language "Tibetan" which they share in common - though if
> they tried to speak to each other they might have a great deal of difficulty
> understanding each other.
Precisely why audio objects need systematic tagging.
> In short I favour inclusion of codes for written languages in the Ethnolouge
> list which are currently missing in ISO 639 (and the requirement for a certain
> number of publications does not seem too onerous) - but do not favour the
> adoption of all the languages in the Ethnolouge list wholesale
> at this time as many of these appear to be only spoken languages or distinct
RFC 1766 already registers several languages, notably the zh-* family, that
do not have distinct written forms.
-- There is / one art || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT