From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 17:31:13 CST
"A shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot"
— Max Weinreich (Joshua Fishman), 1945.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 13:48
Subject: Re: Serbian-Latin "sh" alias and ISO-639-1 within CLDR
> On 14/03/2005 16:50, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > ...
> > (I am also wondering if Serbian Cyrillic and Serbian Latin are still
> > the same language, given the huge differences of orthographies, which
> > may affect its pronunciation, ...
>
>
> This doesn't make sense. I don't know much about the Serbian situation,
> but I have worked in another country where both Latin and Cyrillic
> scripts are in use for the same language, and I can assure you that the
> difference in script is not reflected in pronunciation. There is no
> reason why it should be, given there is a clear one-to-one mapping
> between the scripts, which are reasonably phonetic. And there is no
> question that the language is the same even though the script is
different.
>
> Of course if the different scripts are in fact used by different social,
> political or dialect groups, that may be a different matter, but the
> script difference is not the cause of the pronunciation difference, they
> are largely independent consequences of social and/or political factors.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter@qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 17:32:35 CST