Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:52:17 -0700

Ben Scarborough wrote:
 
> I will gladly amend my form if the opinion is that "sociolect" is not
> a suitable term to use here.
 
Just for the record, we aren't absolutely required to wrap ourselves
around this axle. For example, the line could simply read:
 
Comments: "Archaic" Esperanto variety defined by Manuel Halvelik
 
It's just a comment, after all.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Hugh Paterson III <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:52:20 +0100

FYI: register is a problematic term from a linguistic perspective. There
are at least three senses of the term. The first as it is used here is a
social register in which language a or language b is chosen, the second is
in southEast Asian languages where word forms differ based on register -
which may also have social applications of use, and third in register tier
theory, a phonological theory of tone analysis. So in general, the word
seems to be over loaded, and should IMO be avoided.

- Hugh Paterson III

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:53 AM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-- 
All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone
Paris, France

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 03:15:03 +0000

I don’t know if I prefer “variety” to “dialect” but there really isnt a need to have “Archaic” in scare quotes in the Comments field.

Having said that, wouldn't modern Esperantists will find the subtag “arkaika” easier to recognize and remember than “arcaicam”? 

Did he “define” it or “devise” it? I think the latter.

Michael

> On 25 Nov 2020, at 04:52, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ben Scarborough wrote:
>

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:32:46 +0000

I think in a context that pertains to linguistic variation, I think the sociolinguistic usage of “register” will generally be understood, not the phonological usage. (The latter perhaps might be assumed by default if the context were specifically speech resources, but the former would be relevant to all types of language resources.) And it would be trivially easy to clarify in a spec that that is meant. Moreover, there isn’t any more widely-used term for that meaning. It’s relevant enough to the domain of language resources that ISO TC37/SC1 has published a technical report on sociolinguistic register, and referring to it as “register”: ISO/TR 20694:2018 A typology of language registers<https://www.iso.org/standard/68852.html>.

As for the first usage you mentioned, I think “code switching” or “diglossia” are more widely used than “register”. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered this being referred to as “register”, though I admit it’s not an area I’ve studied much. And I guess there might be cases in which it might not be obvious at first glance whether two distinct varieties should be considered distinct languages or distinct registers of a single language. (In fact, TR 20694 has a section discussing the distinction.) But I don’t think this argues against use of “register” in the sociolinguistic sense: if it’s determined that what was observed are two distinct languages, then from then on I would expect “diglossia” or “code switching” would be the terminology used, being more conventional for that sense and less ambiguous.

My 2 cents.

Peter

From: Ietf-languages <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Hugh Paterson III
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 11:52 PM
To: Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Ben Scarborough <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

FYI: register is a problematic term from a linguistic perspective. There are at least three senses of the term. The first as it is used here is a social register in which language a or language b is chosen, the second is in southEast Asian languages where word forms differ based on register - which may also have social applications of use, and third in register tier theory, a phonological theory of tone analysis. So in general, the word seems to be over loaded, and should IMO be avoided.

- Hugh Paterson III

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:53 AM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewellic.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BuxrCeYz%2BwsAGQFKqX%2FrFFNQdI7v9cjNOUT5hG0uN7w%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gCaK4Pu0CpsBCpOhQo%2FoUR8z%2FeETHrpIoqUUfVxr3AY%3D&reserved=0>
--
All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone
Paris, France

---

From: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:13:51 -0300

Dear all,

here I bring my comments to these two threads, as they continue to 
cross-reference one to another.

*Michael*: /I don’t know if I prefer “variety” to “dialect”/

I did not think that “dialect” was among the options; we are discussing 
“sociolect” vs. “register” or perhaps the neutral “variety” (sociolects, 
registers, and dialects are all different kinds of varieties, as ISO 
21636 understand these terms).  "Dialect" is not compatible with 
ISO/TR21636 (see below).

To *Peter* (on code-switching and “register”): I agree with all you 
wrote, and thanks for pointing to the ISO registry TR. Let me add that 
that TR has been devised by a different working group, but in 
coordination with the group working on language varieties that I lead. 
Their conceptual framework is thus compatible with the set-based 
understanding of languages and language varieties. They do, however, 
cover some phenomena under “register”.

*Hugh*: /My understanding is that whistle speech and drum speech are 
being presented in the report as separate mediums (which it also appears 
the report also equated with modalities, it seems to conflate the 
distinction between medium and mode) but clearly whistle speech is an 
oral speech modality the same as speaking is an oral speech modality. So 
separating these in the medium dimension seems to be unnatural./

‘Medium’ is the name of the dimension (analogous to ‘space’), and 
‘modalities’ are the varieties belonging to the medium dimension 
(analogous to dialects belonging to the space dimension). We do not use 
the ambiguous ‘mode’ afaik.

The whistled modality is clearly different from the spoken/oral 
modality, although it is, of course, derived from it: the whistler 
transfers crucial properties of oral speech into the signal formed by 
whistling, that is why it works. (The same holds true for the drummed 
modality.) But the same is also the case of writing, which is also 
derived from or based on speech, and yet writing is a different modality.

The other genuine basic modality of human language is that of signing, 
in the case of sign languages. (If real sign languages are represented 
in writing or symbol systems, the writing is based on the signs.) In the 
case of regular spoken languages, such as English, which also do have a 
signed modality (such as “Signing Exact English”), this modality is 
based on the spoken/oral modality.

I am not totally sure, but there may be some constructed languages where 
the basic modality is the written modality – languages which have first 
been devised in writing, without any concrete pronounciation in mind. 
Bliss symbols, as far as they indeed are a full-fledged language (and 
not a variety of another language), are a candidate.

*Michael*: /“Dialect", please. “Chronolect” is a nonsense. It is not a 
register because it has different accidence than Esperanto does. (Not 
just like English “thou hast”, but throughout the system./

We use “dialect” in a more specific sense in ISO/TR21636: A dialect is 
always bound to a certain geographical region.   This does not hold for 
the Archaic Esperanto at hand here.
I continue to defend that it is best characterized as a register, 
applied in certain situations or to achieve a certain effect, just like 
overly formal (and often arachaic) registers in other languages. Using a 
different inflecional system (is it that what you mean by “accidence”?) 
is a perfectly plausible means by which such a different register can be 
marked (each variety is always defined simultaneously by an external 
criterion – to be spoken by persons form a certain region, social class, 
… or in a certain type of situation, etc. – and by a structural 
criterion – phonetic, lexical, or other formal properties, which 
includes inflection, a morphological property). Why should such formal 
properties be excluded in the case of registers but not in the case od 
dialetcs?

TR 21636 does not use the indeed rather rare term “chronolect”, but 
speaks of epochs, periods, and stages. But one could argue that these 
are “chronolects” (of different size/extension).

To *Peter* (on TR21636): thanks for that correct characterization and 
comments. I agree with all of what you write there. Thanks for pointing 
me to the t and u extensions, which I will study to fully understand 
what you say about them.

Best whishes to all,

Sebastian

Sebastian

-- 

Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica ▪ Av. Perimetral, 1901
Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530 ▪ Belém do Pará – PA ▪ Brazil
[email-masked] ▪ +55 (91) 3217 6024 ▪ +55 (91) 983733319
Priv: Tv. Juvenal Cordeiro, 184, Apt 104 ▪ 66070-300 Belém

On 26/11/2020 04:32, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> I think in a context that pertains to linguistic variation, I think 
> the sociolinguistic usage of “register” will generally be understood, 
> not the phonological usage. (The latter perhaps might be assumed by 
> default if the context were specifically speech resources, but the 
> former would be relevant to all types of language resources.) And it 
> would be trivially easy to clarify in a spec that that is meant. 
> Moreover, there isn’t any more widely-used term for that meaning. It’s 
> relevant enough to the domain of language resources that ISO TC37/SC1 
> has published a technical report on sociolinguistic register, and 
> referring to it as “register”: ISO/TR 20694:2018 A typology of 
> language registers <https://www.iso.org/standard/68852.html>.
>
> As for the first usage you mentioned, I think “code switching” or 
> “diglossia” are more widely used than “register”. I can’t say I’ve 
> ever encountered this being referred to as “register”, though I admit 
> it’s not an area I’ve studied much. And I guess there might be cases 
> in which it might not be obvious at first glance whether two distinct 
> varieties should be considered distinct languages or distinct 
> registers of a single language. (In fact, TR 20694 has a section 
> discussing the distinction.) But I don’t think this argues against use 
> of “register” in the sociolinguistic sense: if it’s determined that 
> what was observed are two distinct languages, then from then on I 
> would expect “diglossia” or “code switching” would be the terminology 
> used, being more conventional for that sense and less ambiguous.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Peter
>
> *From:* Ietf-languages <[email-masked]> *On Behalf Of 
> *Hugh Paterson III
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 24, 2020 11:52 PM
> *To:* Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; Ben Scarborough 
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form
>
> FYI: register is a problematic term from a linguistic perspective. 
> There are at least three senses of the term. The first as it is used 
> here is a social register in which language a or language b is chosen, 
> the second is in southEast Asian languages where word forms differ 
> based on register - which may also have social applications of use, 
> and third in register tier theory, a phonological theory of tone 
> analysis. So in general, the word seems to be over loaded, and should 
> IMO be avoided.
>
> - Hugh Paterson III
>
>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewellic.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BuxrCeYz%2BwsAGQFKqX%2FrFFNQdI7v9cjNOUT5hG0uN7w%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gCaK4Pu0CpsBCpOhQo%2FoUR8z%2FeETHrpIoqUUfVxr3AY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> -- 
>
> All the best,
> -Hugh
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Paris, France
>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:19:18 -0700

Sebastian Drude wrote:

> Michael: I don’t know if I prefer “variety” to “dialect”
>
> I did not think that “dialect” was among the options; we are
> discussing “sociolect” vs. “register” or perhaps the neutral “variety”
> (sociolects, registers, and dialects are all different kinds of
> varieties, as ISO 21636 understand these terms).  "Dialect" is not
> compatible with ISO/TR21636 (see below).

I'm pretty sure Michael was not talking about ISO TR 21636, but about the Comments field in Ben Scarborough's registration form for 'arcaicam', which was the original subject that used the Subject line "Language subtag registration form."

This perhaps shows what can happen when the topic of discussion on a mailing list changes, but the Subject line does not. I've been guilty of this too, in the current discussions.

I don't believe Ben's proposal for 'arcaicam' needs to be at risk because we can't agree among ourselves whether it's a dialect, a sociolect, a chronolect, or some other kind of lect. It's an odd bird, a constructed language conceived as a variation of a constructed language. We ought to be able to figure out a NON-NORMATIVE way to describe it in this Comments field, and go with it, unless there are genuine concerns about whether this variant should be encoded or about some other, more important aspect of the request.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:22:02 -0700

Michael Everson wrote:

> I don’t know if I prefer “variety” to “dialect” but there really isnt
> a need to have “Archaic” in scare quotes in the Comments field.

I think the scare quotes are there because it's not truly archaic, having been invented after normal Esperanto, but is meant to evoke the feeling of being an archaic form.

> Having said that, wouldn't modern Esperantists will find the subtag
> “arkaika” easier to recognize and remember than “arcaicam”? 

Probably intended to be recognizable from the vantage point of AE, rather than normal Esperanto.

> Did he “define” it or “devise” it? I think the latter.

I agree with this.

---

From: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 20:03:01 -0300

Thanks, der Doug.

Sebastian

-- 

> I'm pretty sure Michael was not talking about ISO TR 21636, but about the Comments field in Ben Scarborough's registration form for 'arcaicam', which was the original subject that used the Subject…

Yes, and that is what I am talking about.  We were discussing whether 
"sociolect" or "register" would be more apropriate, and I do not know 
when "dialect" was introduced.  I think it is certainly less appropriate 
than both other options, and it would certainly not be compatible with 
the definition of "dialect" in ISO/TR21636, where a dialect is always 
tied to a certain geographical region.  That is what I wanted to say.

> This perhaps shows what can happen when the topic of discussion on a mailing list changes, but the Subject line does not. I've been guilty of this too, in the current discussions.

True.  Which is why I joined the two threads.

> I don't believe Ben's proposal for 'arcaicam' needs to be at risk because

EXACTLY!!  This was just a sideline discussion.  Ben already agreed to 
change the point (3) to the more neutral "variety", which should be 
acceptable to everybody.  I just pointed at a discrepancy between the 
characterization of this (indeed) odd bird as "sociolect" in (3) 
(following the original characterization by its creator) and the --in my 
view, correct-- characterization as a "register" in point (4).  I would 
happily let this issue rest at this point.

> we can't agree among ourselves whether it's a dialect, a sociolect, a chronolect, or some other kind of lect. It's an odd bird, a constructed language conceived as a variation of a constructed language. We ought to be able to figure out a NON-NORMATIVE way to describe it in this Comments field, and go with it, unless there are genuine concerns about whether this variant should be encoded or about some other, more important aspect of the request.
>
> --