[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [geolang-comment] ISSUE 3: The "language" published subject
Lars Marius Garshol scripsit: > So, should we create such a published subject? Yes. > If we do, how do we define "language"? The one thing we must not do is define it as "the class of things mentioned in ISO 639", however superficially attractive that is. Lots of the things in ISO 639 are not even languages, but groups of languages, and even some of the things that *appear* to be single languages aren't. The SIL people have done an extensive study on the deficiencies of the ISO codes. Defining "language" is like defining "alive"; a roomful of biologists once spent hours on the latter pursuit, until Sir Peter Medaware silenced them by saying "We all know the difference between a live horse and a dead one, so I suggest we cease to beat the latter." -- John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC