W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Language X within scope of language Y

From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:46:32 +0100
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050121173630.02c9f280@mail.jefsey.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>,Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org,www-rdf-interest@w3.org,www-international@w3.org

Harry,
Denglish, Frenglish etc. the real issue is the service provided to the 
user. At internet level, interoperability is at end to end level. With 
content exchanges interoperability is at brain to brain (cpu/cpu) 
level.  The user being a person (more flexibility, but documentation to be 
provided - networked computer assisted relation [or etended services] are 
touched with OPES) or a machine (accuracy).

There are similar aspects in human languages and computer languages (you 
know Carlos Quinto's quote) this is why language tag flexibility is of the 
essence to document the way an automated or assisted exchange is carried/to 
be carried.
jfc


At 02:20 20/01/2005, Harry Halpin wrote:

>Just to point this out as someone that does a bit of linguistics,
>there is a widespread phenoumena called "inclusions" which makes
>saying that one word is either "English" or "German" a bit suspect.
>Such as the use of the word "Internet" in German. Even often when words 
>are invented in foreign languages for technical concepts, English may 
>creep in and overplant the new word. In German this has become so bad it's 
>called "Denglish" - see:
>http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1395083,00.html
>
>There are event XML-based tools to detect inclusions:
>www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/seer/papers/PAPILLON04.pdf
>
>Fundamentally, it's probably *fine* for standards to demand that a word
>have a single language, since most documents are written *as a whole* in a 
>primary language. However, having the capability to mark a section of text 
>in mutliple langauges may actually be quite sensible, and a better 
>reflection of the reality of language use.
>
>                                 -harry
>
>
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>>
>>Also, because words get adopted over time, and become "more and more"
>>considered a natural part of the language. Is "conversation" English? Is
>>"ambiance"? Is " faįade"? Is "faux pas"? If you take the view that if they
>>are found in common English dictionaries, then yes, they are. Each of them
>>was originally from French, but now are part of English. On the other hand,
>>"Vierwaldstätterseeschifffahrtsgesellschaft" is not (yet).
>>
>>˙˙Mark
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
>>To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>; <www-international@w3.org>;
>><ietf-languages@iana.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 13:17
>>Subject: RE: Language X within scope of language Y
>>
>>
>>>>From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm not familiar with that work, but certainly "Das Kapital" is
>>>>>German even if I refer to it in an English conversation; "Capital"
>>>>>would be English. (/dæs k˙˙æp˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙/ would be German spoken with
>>>>>an American English accent.)
>>>>
>>>>It's not clear what you refer to when you refer to it, though.  All the
>>>>translations I have ever seen are entitled "Capital", so presumably when
>>>>you refer to it, you refer to the ur-book which is language independent.
>>>
>>>The relevant issue you're hitting on is that titles can cross the line
>>from a linguistic expression that happens to denote an object to become a
>>*name*, names having a measure of language independence that general
>>linguistic expressions typically do not have.
>>>
>>>
>>>Peter Constable
>>
>>
>
>--
>                                 --harry
>
>         Harry Halpin
>         Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 16:46:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:04 GMT