Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] A code for standard Zhuang

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 08:25:01 -0700

David Starner wrote:

> Wikipedia currently implies there is a problem, by giving the ISO
> 639-3 tag of mis to Standard Zhuang,

The Wikipedia article on "Zhuang languages" says:

"Standard Zhuang is based on the northern Zhuang dialect of Wuming."

which, just by itself, without any additional research such as you and
John have considered, implies that Standard Zhuang should be coded
'zyb', including on the "Standard Zhuang" page.

Assigning a separate ISO 639 code element to Standard Zhuang might cause
issues similar to the assignment of separate code elements for Tagalog
and Filipino. While Filipino is called an "enriched and developed"
version of Tagalog, many people see the two names as equivalent, or at
best, see Filipino as a standardized dialect of Tagalog, and regard the
assignment of two different language code elements as confusing.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: David Starner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 02:04:57 +0000

> 'zyb', including on the "Standard Zhuang" page.

However, Johnkn63 at Wikimedia says "There is a world of difference between
Standard Zhuang and zyb, Standard Zhuang simply uses zyb phonemes, the
vocabulary and spelling are not based on zyb. Anyone taking the Standard
Zhuang language test and answering the questions in zyb would fail, for
that matter a zyb person who had not studied Standard Zhuang would not be
able to understand many of the questions."

> assignment of two different language code elements as confusing.

I think an Arabic-like model might be more likely; "za" continues to be the
usual tag for Standard Zhuang, and Standard Zhuang is Zhuang to most
people, with the individual dialects being of little respect.

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:51:15 +0200

> able to understand many of the questions."

  There’s nothing in that statement to contradict the notion that
Standard Zhuang, as a whole, is a standard form of Yongbei Zhuang [zyb].
In fact, if anything, it reinforces that notion: why else consider the
situation of a native speaker of Yongbei Zhuang taking the Standard
Zhuang language test?  A native English speaker who only relies on their
mother tongue ability, has a vocabulary limited to everyday needs, and
has not learnt to spell consistently, would most likely fail a language
test in English in like manner.

> people, with the individual dialects being of little respect.

  Yes, I’m also wondering whether using just [za] wouldn’t be both more
sensible and better serve the community.  That’s what most other
Wikipedias do, after all: [zh] for Chinese, not [cmn]; [ar] for Arabic,
not [arb], [pt] for Portuguese, not [pt-br] and [pt-pt], etc.  An
unfortunate exception to that is the coexistence of separate Wikipedias
in Serbian [sr], Croatian [hr], Serbocroatian [sh], and Bosnian [bs].

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: David Starner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:27:09 +0000

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:51 AM Arthur Reutenauer <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> not [arb], [pt] for Portuguese, not [pt-br] and [pt-pt], etc.

Probably. However, that still leaves the question of what the ISO 639-3
code (which, again, the Wikipedia page for Standard Zhuang gives as mis)
should be used, even if that's not needed for Wikimedia (and a theoretical
and currently unimportant question of whether za.WP and zyb.WP can coexist.)

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:59:15 +0200

> and currently unimportant question of whether za.WP and zyb.WP can coexist.)

  Actually, even the question of which tag to use is rather theoretical
because the answer depends on the context.  If you want to distinguish
Standard Zhuang from a generic Zhuang variety, the consensus of this
list is that [zyb] is appropriate; if you need to specifically
distinguish Standard Zhuang from Yongbei Zhuang, well, obviously, you
can’t today in ISO 639-3.  But in a BCP 47 context, you have other
options that tagging at the language level, for example one could
imagine variant subtags for different orthographies (which from the
little I’ve read seem more relevant than other factors).  Those subtags
would need to be registered, of course.

	Best,

		Arthur