Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [volapuk] Language variant tagging and Volapük

Expand Messages
  • Michael Everson
    ... So would vo-jleyer, though. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
    Message 1 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 12 Jan 2012, at 17:35, Hermann Philipps wrote:

      > I'm for vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. These tags would pinpoint the two
      > dialects to their exact origins.

      So would vo-jleyer, though.

      Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
    • Michael Everson
      ... There is a wide variety of choices used in the Registry... For instance for Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian, instead of using -western and -eastern
      Message 2 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 12 Jan 2012, at 17:41, Tony Harris wrote:

        > I agree with the notion of naming them by their originator instead of rigik and nulik, for the reasons you have given below.
        >
        > For whether to use schleyer or jleyer, which is the only other question, I think it depends on whether one customarily names dialects based on the internal designation to the language, or on what one would call the dialect in English.

        There is a wide variety of choices used in the Registry... For instance for Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian, instead of using -western and -eastern (which could be applied to *any* language) the terms 'arevmda' and 'arevela' were used.

        > So for an invented example (since I can't think of a real one off the top of my head), if a language named Smurfish (code: xm) has a dialect spoken in a region called natively Ippich, but which English speakers routinely call Smurfhill, would the resulting code generally be assigned as xm-ippich or as xm-smurfhill?

        Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is "bauddha" not "buddhhyb" for instance.

        > If the norm would say that you would use xm-ippich, then that means you normally let the language's own speakers and internal naming/spelling dictate the code, and we would use vo-jleyer. If the norm is that all codes use the English spelling/designation of the dialect, then we would use vo-schleyer as the more internationally recognizable name.

        Googling "jleyer volapük" gets 85 hits, which is fewer than the 139,000 which "schleyer volapük" gets. Not that this would be unexpected.

        I have another idea about pointing to specific dictionaries. See the next entry in this thread.

        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
      • Michael Everson
        Other options would be: vo-1888vbuk vo-1931vbuk where vbuk = vödabuk and the references are to Schleyer s 4th edition and to de Jong s 6th edition.
        Message 3 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Other options would be:

          vo-1888vbuk
          vo-1931vbuk

          where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:

          1882 2nd edition
          1884 3rd edition
          1888 4th edition (648 pp)
          1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")

          I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)

          This format has often been used for subtags:

          1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
          1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
          baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
          1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
          petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
          luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10

          So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.

          Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
        • Ken
          I haven t voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not vo-1888 vo-1931 or vo1888 vo1931 ? Ken
          Message 4 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not

            vo-1888
            vo-1931

            or

            vo1888
            vo1931

            ?

            Ken

            --- In volapuk@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
            >
            > Other options would be:
            >
            > vo-1888vbuk
            > vo-1931vbuk
            >
            > where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:
            >
            > 1882 2nd edition
            > 1884 3rd edition
            > 1888 4th edition (648 pp)
            > 1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")
            >
            > I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)
            >
            > This format has often been used for subtags:
            >
            > 1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
            > 1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
            > baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
            > 1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
            > petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
            > luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10
            >
            > So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.
            >
            > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
            >
          • Hermann Philipps
            True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible exception of Godes s
            Message 5 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is
              -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible
              exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good
              alignment to how languages really work, might still have some
              potential -- a dead horse.

              Hermann

              Ken schrieb:
              >
              >
              > I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In
              > fact, why not
              >
              > vo-1888
              > vo-1931
              >
              > or
              >
              > vo1888
              > vo1931
              >
              > ?
              >
              > Ken
              >
              > --- In volapuk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:volapuk%40yahoogroups.com>,
              > Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Other options would be:
              > >
              > > vo-1888vbuk
              > > vo-1931vbuk
              > >
              > > where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th
              > edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:
              > >
              > > 1882 2nd edition
              > > 1884 3rd edition
              > > 1888 4th edition (648 pp)
              > > 1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")
              > >
              > > I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)
              > >
              > > This format has often been used for subtags:
              > >
              > > 1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
              > > 1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
              > > baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
              > > 1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
              > > petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
              > > luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10
              > >
              > > So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise
              > than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.
              > >
              > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
              > >
              >
              >
            • Michael Everson
              ... vo- is the existing prefix. Most web pages or whatever can be tagged vo already. No problem. But if you want to distinguish the different orthographies,
              Message 6 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:25, Ken wrote:

                > I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not
                >
                > vo-1888
                > vo-1931
                >
                > or
                >
                > vo1888
                > vo1931

                vo- is the existing prefix. Most web pages or whatever can be tagged "vo" already. No problem. But if you want to distinguish the different orthographies, you need a variant tag.

                Four-digit standalone tags are not permitted -- apart from "1990" which describes the German spelling reform ("die Schlechtschreibung") which was added before the rule was made. As I showed in my last message, the practice with dates now is mostly to use four letters with them. as 1694acad. That's why I suggested "YYYYvbuk".

                Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
              • Michael Everson
                ... Yes. That s why I m learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word novel in it. There s nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes,
                Message 7 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:34, Hermann Philipps wrote:

                  > True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good alignment to how languages really work, might still have some potential -- a dead horse.

                  Yes. That's why I'm learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word novel in it.

                  There's nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes, most people interested in Volapük today are Volapükologists rather than Volapükists, to borrow the distinction made by the Esperantists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%c3%bckologist

                  Anyway, language tagging is useful, and the distinction here is certainly something it would be handy to be able to tag.

                  Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                • Hermann Philipps
                  I m pleased to read this. It is a wonderful hobby, and I might even consider brushing up my own Volapük so I can read your novel. Have fun! Glidis ladöfik,
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jan 15, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm pleased to read this. It is a wonderful hobby, and I might even
                    consider brushing up my own Volapük so I can read your novel.
                    Have fun!

                    Glidis ladöfik,
                    Hermann

                    Michael Everson schrieb:
                    >
                    >
                    > On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:34, Hermann Philipps wrote:
                    >
                    > > True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is
                    > -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible
                    > exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good
                    > alignment to how languages really work, might still have some potential
                    > -- a dead horse.
                    >
                    > Yes. That's why I'm learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word
                    > novel in it.
                    >
                    > There's nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes,
                    > most people interested in Volapük today are Volapükologists rather than
                    > Volapükists, to borrow the distinction made by the Esperantists.
                    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%c3%bckologist
                    >
                    > Anyway, language tagging is useful, and the distinction here is
                    > certainly something it would be handy to be able to tag.
                    >
                    > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                    >
                    >
                  • Michael Everson
                    Discussion here and on the IETF language tags list is still so far inconclusive, considering the number of people who have responded and the number of people
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jan 20, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Discussion here and on the IETF language tags list is still so far inconclusive, considering the number of people who have responded and the number of people subscribed to this list.

                      I did some general googling just to see what sorts of terms are out there.

                      168000 "De Jong" Volapük
                      139000 Schleyer Volapük
                      054800 Volapük nulik
                      002700 Volapük rigik
                      001410 Volapük perevidöl
                      001270 "Volapük perevidol"
                      001230 "De Jong's" Volapük
                      000884 DeJong Volapük
                      000859 "Volapük rigik"
                      000149 "Volapük nulik"
                      000103 Jleyer Volapük
                      000024 Schleyerian Volapük
                      000006 "De Jong's Volapük"
                      000003 "Schleyerian Volapük"
                      000003 "De Jongian Volapük"
                      000000 "DeJong's Volapük"

                      Obviously search engine results are search engine results. I notice a distinct difference between spelling de Jong's name correctly (as two words) and incorrectly as one. It is interesting to see "perevodöl" do well, but I doubt we can insist on an ö in a meta-subtag. Here I have pared the list down to the front runners:

                      168000 "De Jong" Volapük correctly spelt
                      139000 Schleyer Volapük
                      054800 Volapük nulik
                      002700 Volapük rigik
                      000884 DeJong Volapük incorrectly spelt
                      000859 "Volapük rigik"
                      000149 "Volapük nulik"
                      000103 Jleyer Volapük

                      I'd like to respect de Jong's name, to be honest, which to me means we should go with:

                      vo-rigik
                      vo-nulik

                      (It would also, on reflection, be perverse to write "jleyer" if not alongside "deyong".)

                      Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                    • Michael Everson
                      Some additional counts added, marked with **: On 20 Jan 2012, at 10:53, Michael Everson wrote: 168000 De Jong Volapük 139000 Schleyer Volapük 054800
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jan 20, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Some additional counts added, marked with **:

                        On 20 Jan 2012, at 10:53, Michael Everson wrote:

                        168000 "De Jong" Volapük
                        139000 Schleyer Volapük
                        054800 Volapük nulik
                        002700 Volapük rigik
                        001410 Volapük perevidöl
                        001270 "Volapük perevidol"
                        001230 "De Jong's" Volapük
                        000978 "Modern VolapÜk" **
                        000884 DeJong Volapük
                        000859 "Volapük rigik"
                        000608 "Original Volapük" **
                        000435 "New Volapük" **
                        000325 "Classic Volapük" **
                        000149 "Volapük nulik"
                        000103 Jleyer Volapük
                        000024 Schleyerian Volapük
                        000010 "Volapük nulädik" **
                        000006 "De Jong's Volapük"
                        000003 "Schleyerian Volapük"
                        000003 "De Jongian Volapük"
                        000000 "DeJong's Volapük"
                        000000 "Volapük klatädik" **

                        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.