Subject: [Ietf-languages] Ganda / Luganda

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:34:48 -0700

There is a CLDR ticket [1] that argues for changing the name of the
Ganda language, spoken in Uganda, to "Luganda." The claim is that
"Luganda" is the name everyone actually uses, not only in the language
itself, but also in English and other language contexts.
 
The name "Ganda" is from ISO 639-3, presumably via the Language Subtag
Registry. ISO 639-3 does not list any alternate names for this language.
Ethnologue lists "Baganda, LùGáànda, luGanda" as alternate names and
"Luganda" as the autonym. The subtag is 'lg', from ISO 639-1; the
corresponding ISO 639-2 and -3 code elements are [lug].
 
The Wikipedia article "Ganda language" [2] was renamed to "Luganda" back
in 2010, amid a lively debate that featured arguments similar to those
in the CLDR ticket. The article begins, "The Ganda language, or
Luganda..." and then refers to the language exclusively as "Luganda."
 
In the Registry, for language subtags and others based on core
standards, we use the name(s) from the external standard but are free to
add additional Description fields. We did this in 2017 for Bengali, to
add the name "Bangla," as both names are used in English-language
contexts.
 
I would like to propose adding "Luganda" as an additional Description
field for language subtag 'lg'. Forms will be sent to the list soon.
There are no conflicts since this name is not used for any other
language (or other) subtag. Comments are welcome.
 
[1] http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/11004
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luganda
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Caoimhin O Donnaile <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:27:18 +0000 (GMT)

> field for language subtag 'lg'.

This sounds very sensible to me.

Isn’t this a widespread “problem” with (East-?)African languages, 
though, that they are commonly referred to with a prefix which means 
“language”, such as:

   Swahili - Kiswahili
   Bemba - ChiBemba (and Ichibemba, etc)

How pro-active should we be in adding these alternatives to the 
Description field?

I suppose the prefix is more de rigeur when the word without the prefix 
could also refer to a people or country rather than a language.

(I have only very limitied knowledge myself of African languages)

Caoimhín

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 22:06:41 -0700

>   Bemba - ChiBemba (and Ichibemba, etc)

"Kiswahili" is already an additional Description field for Swahili 
('swh' the individual language, not 'sw' the macrolanguage). That one 
came from ISO 639-3.

OTOH, we don't have any alternative names for either Bemba (Zambia or 
DRC). If there is evidence that the speakers of one of these languages 
call it "ChiBemba" instead of "Bemba", even while speaking English, then 
we should consider that too. That was the premise behind having both 
"Bengali" and "Bangla." It has nothing to do with what the name of that 
language is *in Bengali*.

> How pro-active should we be in adding these alternatives to the

I don't want to be proactive at all if that means "adding a Description 
field on speculation that someone may want it some day." Someone is 
already asking for it, via CLDR.

I'm not trying to add endonyms for their own sake. Again, there seems to 
be evidence that people actually do refer to this language as "Luganda," 
and DO NOT refer to it as "Ganda," even while speaking English.

> could also refer to a people or country rather than a language.

That could be a factor as well. The Luganda language is spoken by the 
Baganda people in the Buganda region of Uganda.

> (I have only very limitied knowledge myself of African languages)

As do I.