Re: "French+" support by Unicode

From: JFC Morfin (
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 20:53:47 CDT

  • Next message: Erkki I. Kolehmainen: "VS: "French+" support by Unicode"

    At 07:43 12/04/2008, Doug Ewell wrote:

    >Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:
    >>Thank you for that comprehensive explication, Kenneth, which
    >>amounts to saying, if I understand you correctly, that it would
    >>have been more correct for me to say "ISO/IEC 10646 is an
    >>international standard published in at least two independent
    >>languages, but the corresponding Unicode standard is a commercial
    >>standard published only in US (Anglo-American) English", (which, I
    >>trust, better answers the query someone else raised concerning
    >>bilingualism in the matter of publishing standards).
    >I don't think it amounts to that at all.
    >Marion's second version corrects the error of projecting the
    >bilingualism of ISO/IEC 10646 onto all ISO standards, but does
    >nothing to address the misleading pseudo-contrast between
    >"international standard" and "commercial standard" -- as though a
    >standard promulgated by an industry consortium cannot be
    >international in nature.
    >Additionally, if it is really necessary to point out that the
    >Unicode Standard is written in "US (Anglo-American) English," I
    >don't see why the shorter but equivalent term "US English" wouldn't
    >be preferable.

    At 20:24 12/04/2008, Asmus Freytag wrote:
    >It also continues to wrongly imply that the French version of 10646
    >is in any way verified or approved by the working group that
    >maintains 10646. It's pure and simple an after-the-fact translation.
    >While it is true that the translation is published through official
    >channels, this does not mean that there has been a formal
    >verification of its contents as rigorous as the review and balloting
    >of the original version. I'm sure the translators did a good job,
    >but in any doubt about a fine point of the specification, you need
    >to refer to the English version.
    >Incidentally, the same translators have provided a translation of
    >the character names and annotations for the Unicode standard, which
    >was last brought up-to-date for Unicode 5.0.

    there are several interesting issues involved here which denotate the
    difficulty of an edge dialog between linguists and multilinguists
    (i.e. those considering what is not linguistic in the approach of the
    linguistic diversity, signs and texts). Interesting to think about
    them as it shows why there may be so much confusion between English
    and non-English thinking people (Latin, Asian for example).

    1) ISO 10646 is supposed to be of bilingual utterance for the world.
    We obviously do not understand bilingual in the sameway first. You
    look at the English text to extract the semantic from its pragmatic.
    I look at the enonciative operation having resulted in a bi-lingual
    utterance in order to understand the unique representation authors
    wanted to impress on the reader.

    2) the notion of "International Standard" is a compromise
    for "Norme" in French. The same as "Norme" in French is a confusion
    for Standard in other cases, many "norms" actually being standards.
    This is a confusion based upon old terminology, before globalisation.
    Actually norms and standards are two different things and both can be
    local or international. Norms are related to what normally is.
    Standards are related what can be done from them, which will be
    interoperable/interintelligible from taking advantage from norms.

    3) What you point out is that the text actually is trilingual as
    English, Anglo-American and French. Anglo-American is the language it
    is written in the text you read [US Version] (what does not mean it
    has been actually solely thought in English).

    4) My point is that in being published out of a bilingual process it
    is expected to be nearer from a its own metalingual architectonic.
    What Asmus implies is that the ISO 10646 he uses is, from his point
    of view, a US document; and does not care about the pragmatic being
    involved). In addition he fails to consider that the French version
    is more worked on and probably more metalinguistic and more advanced
    that his US copy [because he says that translators are good, so they
    can easily chose the best notional occurrences, and add (or have to
    add) metalinguistic value (moreover that it is more common in
    metaductive French than in inductive English).

    It means that the ISO process has not been respected in order to get
    a polynym document (cross-language synonymy and quality), i.e; able
    to be better translated in different other languages. The French
    document is more advanced and there is no feed back of it into the
    English version. This is something we oberved in ISO 639-3 : the
    itarative bi-lingual quality assurance process has not properly
    worked. This creates problem in that particular case because they did
    not want to publish a face to face version which would help
    comparing. And because the French version is often favored as more
    precise (language and actual ISO publication process) when
    translating in other languages.

    Thank you for this very speaking example of the polynymic issue.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 20:58:41 CDT