Jim Mason, director of the Rosetta project, has replied to a couple of
Unicode List messages.
But he wrote to <unicode@yahoogroups.com> (the "Unicode Digest Mode") rather
to <unicode@unicode.org>.
This was my fault to mislead Jim there: in a private message, I referred him
to the YahooGroops archive, calling it "the Unicode List". I apologize to
Jim and everybody else for this misunderstanding.
Here are Jim's messages:
-----Original Message-----
From: unicode@yahoogroups.com [mailto:unicode@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 10.35
To: unicode@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [unicode] Digest Number 480
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 03:12:41 -0700
From: "Jim Mason" <jimmason@sirius.com>
Subject: Genesis vs. UDHR
jim mason here, the director of the rosetta project.
i'm enjoying the genesis vs udhr debate i just found in your list archive.
i wish i could say the debate was new to my ears . . . ;-)
mike hit most of the points relating to our genesis choice in his email
below. but to expand a bit, our desire was to have one of the eight
components for each 1,000 languages be a text for which we could find
quality parallel translations. trying to commission these ourselves was
logistically impossible so we had to choose what had already been done. and
what has been carefully, often painstakingly translated, us the bible.
setting aside the "its culturally loaded" argument for a moment, from a
linguistic perspective, it is clearly the best source for quality
translations in a large number of languages. the udhr doesn't come close in
number or quality.
portions of the bible have been translated into about 2,200 languages.
translators usually start with the gospels, typically mark, as it is one of
the more literal. we decided a new testament text was simply too loaded to
make an icon of the project, so we compromised on the somewhat more "shared"
story of genesis. that reduced the number of available parallel
translations to about 1,000. and then we tried to soften the impact by
making the second component for each language a glossed creation text for
some culture that speaks the language. but that opens a whole other set of
difficulties regarding the appropriate dissemination of important cultural
materials . . .
a couple points to remember about our motivations.
1. we are NOT trying to create a cultural snapshot or timecapsule with the
rosetta project. we are trying to create a linguistic tool of relevance for
contemporary and future researchers. towards that end, we will use the best
linguistic materials we can find. sometimes they won't agree with the
politics of an ideal world.
2. biblical texts are absolutely central to the history of linguistics and
the development of writing systems around the world. you can't talk about
either without talking about biblical materials. it is integral to the
history of language globally, from ancient times to today. so while many of
us don't ascribe to the cosmology of the story, our linguistic heritage is
inextricably intertwined with the history of biblical translation. i am not
a believer, nor is the long now foundation a religious organization, but
i/we do acknowledge and engage with my/our history as well as the history of
others.
3. genesis is an evocative text, exploring somewhat general human themes,
and has found relevance with listeners for millennia. it is shared by
several major world religions and a majority of the world's citizens. the
udhr, on the otherhand, is a fragmented and rather dry text. it reads like
a text written by a committee, which it was. not to mention it is equally
(or more) political to many ears than genesis. ultimately, there is no
neutral text. any single parallel text will be culturally loaded for
someone . . .
4. and despite all these reasonable reasons, we are probably going to start
using both, as i'm tired of explaining our choice . . . ;-) people usually
agree with the above reasons once we have the discussion, but many jump when
they first see it. it tends to derail people from the larger goals of the
project.
thanks for your interest in the project. hope you all will come see us at
www.rosettaproject.org
jim mason
director, rosetta project
ps- and to tempt you all a little, our future plans are to convert the
entire database to a two-level file system, using image files to display
texts like we currently do, but having a hidden live text layer (in unicode)
that will allow for real searches across the database, live text downloads,
and use of screen readers for the blind. anyone have a couple months they
care to donate . . . ;-)
From: "Ayers, Mike" <Mike_Ayers@b...>
Date: Fri May 25, 2001 6:07 pm
Subject: RE: Genesis v. UDHR?
[...]
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 03:30:44 -0700
From: "Jim Mason" <jimmason@sirius.com>
Subject: RE: Call for contributions to new 1,000 Language Online Arch ive
yes, the swadesh list has lots of exposed wounds that we can poke at, but it
is still a curiously motivated list that continues to find relevance in the
field of linguistics. the original claim was the the terms represented
semantic fields that were more likely to have near equivalents cross
culture. the terms tend towards things that in a previous time we might
have claimed were "natural categories"- things like man, woman, fire, sun,
moon, not, etc., rather than things clearly open to cultural construction
like love, honor and piety. they were never claimed to be the terms used
with greatest frequency cross-linguistically.
but morris swadesh went further and argued these terms to be some of the
most stable across time, resistant to borrowing, and could be used in
combination with a "constant" for lexicon mutation, to determine the amount
of time that had passed since related languages had separated from a common
parent. that claim is considered somewhat silly today, but the list
survives as a useful starting point for core vocabulary collection.
therefore, we choose it as our core vocabulary list for the rosetta project.
anyone who wants to expand a text contribution to our archive to the swadesh
200 word list or other regional addition is more than welcome to do so. . .
jim mason
director, rosetta project
ps- btw, we only currently have 5 swadesh lists on the site. we clearly
need some help on this front. we have also organized a collection group at
yale under doug whalen that is will be working this summer to assemble lists
from full dictionaries. anyone who wants to join the effort is encouraged
to see us at www.rosettaproject.org
----------------------------------------------
On the other hand, when I look at that list, it strikes me that my son
probably knew and used all or nearly all of those words before he was five
years old. To me, that is indicative that those words are pretty basic
within my culture. It has been debated whether those exact semantic
categories apply across all cultures or whether they can be considered
basic across all cultures, but in the end, lots of linguists have found
that list to be of some practical use.
There are variations on the Swadish 100 list. In some situations I'm aware
of, linguists have created regionally-tailored lists that basically extend
the Swadish list by adding another 50 or 100 words that have been chosen
with the cultures of only the given region in mind (not necessarily
culture- or region-specific in the sense that they wouldn't exist
elsewhere, but rather terms that are known to be appropriate for a given
culture or region regardless of whether they would be appropriate elsewhere
or not). But as far as I know, I believe linguists have typically extended
the Swadish list rather than substitute a different list.
________________________________________________________________________
[...]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:17 EDT