This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The ISO 639-2 code "art" for artificial languages is also a collective code, isn't it? HTH -- surueña 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
would like to write about ISO 639 three letter adoption.
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This linux one-liner generates the mapping:
(echo "iso_639_map_1_3 = {"; wget -O -
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-639-3_Latin1_20070516.tab | cut -f 1,4 | sed -e "1,1d" | grep "......" | awk "{print \" '\" \$2 \"' : '\" \$1 \"',\"}" | sort; echo "}") > iso_639_map_1_3.py
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.104.89 ( talk) 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have a paragraph discussing the fact that the standard is not static, but dynamic, and how one might go about proposing changes to it (through the ISO 639-3 registration authority).
- Albert Bickford 206.169.90.53 ( talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we're talking standards, what the heck is "2007-02-05" supposed to mean? I get the 2007 bit. But the rest could be 2 May or 5 February. Totally ambiguous and therefore totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says: "It is a superset of ISO 639-1".
Since all the actual codes are different, it seems more correct to me to say: "The list of languages covered by ISO 639-3 is a superset of the list of languages covered by ISO 639-1".
Or is it too anal? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The various responses to Morey, Post and Friedman introduced by "Evaluation of this criticism" seem to be synthesis. They also read as arguing the SIL case, which is not what WP is for. Kanguole 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
One other idea: Since SSILA had extensive discussion of the standard in 2006 and 2007, could we add a summary of that discussion and SSILA's action to the section on criticisms? If so, the section maybe could be retitled as "Reception by linguists", and could then express a range of viewpoints, thus addressing some of PConstable's concerns that the article was lopsided. Anyway, we're making progress, and I'm pleased with how things are going. AlbertBickford ( talk) 16:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
PConstable had inserted the following sentence in response to Haspelmath's criticism about economic impact: "By aiming to include all natural languages without judgment of economic impact, ISO 639-3 gives equal opportunity for all languages to be used in information technologies, providing an important technology component addressing the Digital divide problem." This seems to be a point that is worthy to be included in the article somewhere. We're staying away from having the criticism section turn into a back-and-forth discussion, but where else might this be placed? Would someone else like to do this, or should I? AlbertBickford ( talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm reviewing what is said about Martin Haspelmath's blog remarks, and it currently doesn't reflect quite accurately what he said. E.g., he doesn't say, "business has no significant interest in the many small, unwritten and often endangered languages with no measurable economic impact," nor does he suggest that all coding be done in terms of languoids. So, I'm going to make some changes; others may want to review and adjust. Pconstable ( talk) 18:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In the list of permitted changes, I changed "removed" to "deprecated": for purposes of stability, entries in 639-3 are never removed. The registration authority talks about "retirement" (unfortunately, since that is somewhat ambiguous), but the actual text of the standard does not use that term: it uses "deprecation". Pconstable ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Minnan is a chinese language, a medieval chinese one, that is one of the ancestor of todaay mandarin or cantonese, so 639-1 should be zh. 82.225.234.108 ( talk) 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sil refered this as : zh-min and/or zh-minnan for more precision (there are at least mindong and minbei), see : http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=pny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.234.108 ( talk) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how a select group of people can decide whether any random language is a language or not. How can they for example decide that those speaking Montenegrin aren't actually speaking a language while their own government calls it one! How can the West accept such an un democratic organization...?-- Michael ( talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that all the links to PDFs in the main page and in the talk page are dead. It seems that some time ago that the physical location of the linguistlist servers changed. when this happened lots of the older features on the linguist list servers ceased to exist. I don't know if the content is in the internet archive or not.
The following items in the further reading section no-longer are correctly linked. Perhaps the SSILA has another server now?
I was reading the talk section above about criticisms, in particular the discussion about Nora England's revisions. I am not an expert in Mayan languages so I am not critiquing her suggestions, but I am asking a process question. How does the ISO handle language mergers? Not just code mergers. Let's say that some daughter languages of historical ancestry are evaluated and they have a low intelligibility score (a classic litmus test for differentiating languages), therefore they are argued to be independent an each assigned and ISO 639-3 code. Then, something happens so that "Bi-dialecticalism" or "bi-lingualism" occurs - say a road is built so that population movement and contact increases. Then another researcher comes along and notices that the languages are no-longer "independent" or that mutual intelligibility has risen or that "leveling" has occurred. Then the new researcher reports these findings, saying that the previous language assessment was in error. If the ISO committee accepts the proposal usually what happens is that the old codes are retired. However, why is it that those codes are retired, rather than pointing to a different era in the history of the language? There are codes in the code set which point to historical states of a language i.e. Old High German, or Old English. If I am asking this question then perhaps the question and the answer should be part of the main page? Hugh Paterson III ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ISO 639-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-November/001589.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the text with "eng" and it brought me to a disambiguation page. If you have to leave the text in the search box, would it be possible to make the text hidden somehow and automatically added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akeosnhaoe ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
http://www.kreativekorp.com/clcr/index.php
2A02:1812:D29:7200:50EA:EB44:BF91:2C83 ( talk) 15:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The ISO 639-2 code "art" for artificial languages is also a collective code, isn't it? HTH -- surueña 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
would like to write about ISO 639 three letter adoption.
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This linux one-liner generates the mapping:
(echo "iso_639_map_1_3 = {"; wget -O -
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-639-3_Latin1_20070516.tab | cut -f 1,4 | sed -e "1,1d" | grep "......" | awk "{print \" '\" \$2 \"' : '\" \$1 \"',\"}" | sort; echo "}") > iso_639_map_1_3.py
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.104.89 ( talk) 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have a paragraph discussing the fact that the standard is not static, but dynamic, and how one might go about proposing changes to it (through the ISO 639-3 registration authority).
- Albert Bickford 206.169.90.53 ( talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we're talking standards, what the heck is "2007-02-05" supposed to mean? I get the 2007 bit. But the rest could be 2 May or 5 February. Totally ambiguous and therefore totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says: "It is a superset of ISO 639-1".
Since all the actual codes are different, it seems more correct to me to say: "The list of languages covered by ISO 639-3 is a superset of the list of languages covered by ISO 639-1".
Or is it too anal? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The various responses to Morey, Post and Friedman introduced by "Evaluation of this criticism" seem to be synthesis. They also read as arguing the SIL case, which is not what WP is for. Kanguole 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
One other idea: Since SSILA had extensive discussion of the standard in 2006 and 2007, could we add a summary of that discussion and SSILA's action to the section on criticisms? If so, the section maybe could be retitled as "Reception by linguists", and could then express a range of viewpoints, thus addressing some of PConstable's concerns that the article was lopsided. Anyway, we're making progress, and I'm pleased with how things are going. AlbertBickford ( talk) 16:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
PConstable had inserted the following sentence in response to Haspelmath's criticism about economic impact: "By aiming to include all natural languages without judgment of economic impact, ISO 639-3 gives equal opportunity for all languages to be used in information technologies, providing an important technology component addressing the Digital divide problem." This seems to be a point that is worthy to be included in the article somewhere. We're staying away from having the criticism section turn into a back-and-forth discussion, but where else might this be placed? Would someone else like to do this, or should I? AlbertBickford ( talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm reviewing what is said about Martin Haspelmath's blog remarks, and it currently doesn't reflect quite accurately what he said. E.g., he doesn't say, "business has no significant interest in the many small, unwritten and often endangered languages with no measurable economic impact," nor does he suggest that all coding be done in terms of languoids. So, I'm going to make some changes; others may want to review and adjust. Pconstable ( talk) 18:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In the list of permitted changes, I changed "removed" to "deprecated": for purposes of stability, entries in 639-3 are never removed. The registration authority talks about "retirement" (unfortunately, since that is somewhat ambiguous), but the actual text of the standard does not use that term: it uses "deprecation". Pconstable ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Minnan is a chinese language, a medieval chinese one, that is one of the ancestor of todaay mandarin or cantonese, so 639-1 should be zh. 82.225.234.108 ( talk) 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sil refered this as : zh-min and/or zh-minnan for more precision (there are at least mindong and minbei), see : http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=pny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.234.108 ( talk) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how a select group of people can decide whether any random language is a language or not. How can they for example decide that those speaking Montenegrin aren't actually speaking a language while their own government calls it one! How can the West accept such an un democratic organization...?-- Michael ( talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that all the links to PDFs in the main page and in the talk page are dead. It seems that some time ago that the physical location of the linguistlist servers changed. when this happened lots of the older features on the linguist list servers ceased to exist. I don't know if the content is in the internet archive or not.
The following items in the further reading section no-longer are correctly linked. Perhaps the SSILA has another server now?
I was reading the talk section above about criticisms, in particular the discussion about Nora England's revisions. I am not an expert in Mayan languages so I am not critiquing her suggestions, but I am asking a process question. How does the ISO handle language mergers? Not just code mergers. Let's say that some daughter languages of historical ancestry are evaluated and they have a low intelligibility score (a classic litmus test for differentiating languages), therefore they are argued to be independent an each assigned and ISO 639-3 code. Then, something happens so that "Bi-dialecticalism" or "bi-lingualism" occurs - say a road is built so that population movement and contact increases. Then another researcher comes along and notices that the languages are no-longer "independent" or that mutual intelligibility has risen or that "leveling" has occurred. Then the new researcher reports these findings, saying that the previous language assessment was in error. If the ISO committee accepts the proposal usually what happens is that the old codes are retired. However, why is it that those codes are retired, rather than pointing to a different era in the history of the language? There are codes in the code set which point to historical states of a language i.e. Old High German, or Old English. If I am asking this question then perhaps the question and the answer should be part of the main page? Hugh Paterson III ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ISO 639-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-November/001589.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the text with "eng" and it brought me to a disambiguation page. If you have to leave the text in the search box, would it be possible to make the text hidden somehow and automatically added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akeosnhaoe ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
http://www.kreativekorp.com/clcr/index.php
2A02:1812:D29:7200:50EA:EB44:BF91:2C83 ( talk) 15:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)