Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Variant subtag for Gallo (was: RE: ISO-3 for Gallo)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 12:15:59 -0600

Removing ISO 639-3 from this thread since it's now out of their hands.

Rembert Eufe wrote:

> just another question on my subject: Would the fact that glottolog
> registers gallo under the following link be sufficient as a reference:
> https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gall1275 ?

Speaking only for myself, not for the Reviewer (Michael Everson) who makes these decisions...

The Glottolog reference may be of some interest, because it links to Glottolog's tree structure and that may facilitate discussion.

But since Glottolog registers anything from fully recognized languages, to dialects, to language families, to things that have just been mentioned somewhere in literature — without performing any additional research, as we and ISO 639 do — the existence of a Glottocode for Gallo is certainly not "sufficient" by itself to cause the request to be accepted.

Instead, you should try to include references that describe the Gallo variety in some detail. The Wikipedia article you cited below has 24 references; you might start there and pick the ones that you feel provide a useful description.

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

>>> we currently work on a French corpus in which some sequences in 
>>> Gallo appear. Gallo is the Romance vernacular of Eastern Brittany 
>>> (opposed to Breton in its Western part):
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo_language .

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:36:25 -0400

References in the English WP page: <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo_language#References>.

References (lots of them) in the French WP page:  <
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo#R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences>.

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:16 PM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The Glottolog reference may be of some interest, because it links to
> Glottolog's tree structure and that may facilitate discussion.
>
> But since Glottolog registers anything from fully recognized languages, to
> dialects, to language families, to things that have just been mentioned
> somewhere in literature — without performing any additional research, as we
> and ISO 639 do — the existence of a Glottocode for Gallo is certainly not
> "sufficient" by itself to cause the request to be accepted.
>
> Instead, you should try to include references that describe the Gallo
> variety in some detail. The Wikipedia article you cited below has 24
> references; you might start there and pick the ones that you feel provide a
> useful description.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

---

From: Rembert Eufe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 12:35:55 +0200

Hello Mr. Ewell,

Yours,

Rembert Eufe

Zitat von Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>:

> Hello Mr. Eufe,
>
> Thank you for your inquiry.
>
> Registration of a BCP 47 variant subtag for a dialect, orthography,  
> or other language variety is not automatic. There is a registration  
> process as described in RFC 5646; a Language Subtag Reviewer, who  
> reviews requests and makes the ultimate decision; and a mailing list  
> (cc'd) where participants can provide additional information and  
> perspectives to assist the Reviewer in making his decision.
>
> RFC 5646, the main document that constitutes BCP 47, is here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5646
>
> Information on the mailing list, including steps to subscribe to the  
> list and participate in the discussion, is here:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Ietf-languages
>
> For the variety in question (Gallo), the discussion will probably  
> focus on the position of Gallo within the family of langues d'oil,  
> and whether other members of the family (besides Standard French)  
> need to be considered as well. There will probably also be  
> comparisons to the langue d'oc family; note than Occitan is coded in  
> ISO 639, but its dialects (Languedocien, Gascon, etc.) have only  
> recently been assigned BCP 47 variant subtags.
>
> Members of this list can help with the actual paperwork described in  
> Section 3.5 of RFC 5646, but you might be asked to provide  
> references to Gallo beyond the Wikipedia page.
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> --
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rembert Eufe <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:40
> To: Registrar ISO639-3 <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: ISO-3 for Gallo
>
> Dear Melinda Lyons,
>
> thank you very much for your answer.
>
> Dear Doug Ewell,
>
> hereby we would like to apply for a dialect code for Gallo. Is this  
> message sufficient or do we have to do anything else?
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> yours,
>
> Rembert Eufe
>
>
> Zitat von Registrar ISO639-3 <[email-masked]>:
>
>> Dear Mr. Eufe,
>>
>> Gallo is considered a dialect of French, so does not have a code under
>> ISO 639. You can apply for a dialect code under IETF BCP 47 by  
>> contacting Mr.
>> Doug Ewell at the copied address.
>>
>> Melinda Lyons
>> ISO 639-3 RA
>> SIL International
>> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
>> Dallas, TX 75236
>>
>> On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 6:36 AM Rembert Eufe
>> <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> we currently work on a French corpus in which some sequences in Gallo
>>> appear. Gallo is the Romance vernacular of Eastern Brittany (opposed
>>> to Breton in its Western part):
>>> For our annotation, we need an ISO-3-Code for Gallo, but we can't
>>> find it. Apparently it hasn't been created yet?
>>>
>>> We would be glad for any information on this subject,
>>>
>>> yours,
>>>
>>> Rembert Eufe

---

From: Rembert Eufe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:02:55 +0200

Dear Doug Ewell,

my first reference is Smith, John Charles (2016): "French and northern  
Gallo-Romance", in: Ledgeway, Adam / Maiden, Martin (edd.): The Oxford  
Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.  
292-318, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0018 (see the  
attachment; in this article, Gallo is mentioned several times as one  
of the Langue-d'Oil dialects, cf. also the map on p. 293 which  
coincides with the maps of Northern Gallo-Romance I am used to find in  
introductory works on Romance languages or French).

A linguistic description: Chauveau, Jean-Paul (1984): Le Gallo: une  
présentation. Brest: Université de la Bretagne Occidentale.
 From the same author on phonological characteristics of Gallo:  
Chauveau, Jean-Paul (1989): Evolutions phonétiques en Gallo, Paris:  
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
A relatively recent volume of proceedings on different aspects of  
Gallo: Angoujard, Jean-Pierre (2008): Autour du gallo. États des  
lieux, analyses et perspectives. Actes de la 1re Journée d'Études  
Gallèses, Nantes, 29 juin 2007, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de  
Rennes.
Here is a link with some examples:  
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/gallo.htm .
And finally a dictionary of Gallo: Auffray, Régis (2007): Le petit  
Matao, Rennes: Rue des Scribes.

I hope that this is sufficient, otherwise let me know.

Yours,

Rembert Eufe

Zitat von Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>:

> But since Glottolog registers anything from fully recognized  
> languages, to dialects, to language families, to things that have  
> just been mentioned somewhere in literature — without performing any  
> additional research, as we and ISO 639 do — the existence of a  
> Glottocode for Gallo is certainly not "sufficient" by itself to  
> cause the request to be accepted.
>
> Instead, you should try to include references that describe the  
> Gallo variety in some detail. The Wikipedia article you cited below  
> has 24 references; you might start there and pick the ones that you  
> feel provide a useful description.
>
> --

---

From: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 20:31:16 -0300

Dear all, John,

Two points with reference to Glottolog and Gallo:

*1: significance of a Glottolog entry:*

    /But since Glottolog registers anything from fully recognized
    languages, to dialects, to language families,/

This is true, but *the different status of these entities is clearly 
visible in Glottolog*.  A full language (1) is COUNTED (it appears in 
the language counts for language (sub)families) and (2) receives a 
coloured SYMBOL in the tree and on the map, different from dialects and 
other varieties.

    /to things that have just been mentioned somewhere in literature/

This is *NOT* true -- the editors of Glottolog are very careful before 
they accept the evidence for the existence of an alledged language.  
Such spurious "languages" for which there is no clear evidence, they 
create entries which are flagged as "*Unattested*". They are not listed 
in the regular language family trees, byt have a listing of their own: 
https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/unat1236

Similarly, there are also some /bookkeeping/ entries.  This is all 
explained here: https://glottolog.org/glottolog/glottologinformation

    /— without performing any additional research, as we and ISO 639 do /—

This is *NOT* true and a very strange thing to assert (based on what?).  
In my experience, the Glottolog editors, very much to the contrary, are 
very careful about their decision about what to count as a language, and 
about their internal classification, and they always document the basis 
for their decisions, indicating the reference to the work which they 
believe is the most well informed.  (For French, this work is Agard, 
Frederick B. 1984 <https://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/301288>: 
83-90.)  They keep up with new work and change their representations 
accordingly.  They are open to debate and are grateful for references 
that state other opinions.

    /the existence of a Glottocode for Gallo is certainly not
    "sufficient" by itself to cause the request to be accepted./

Although it might not be *sufficient*, I do believe that we should take 
Glottolog seriously and that, when postulating a different decision than 
that from the Glottolog editors, we need to justify that very well.

*
*

*2: Status of Gallo in Glottolog*

Strangely, Gallo is represented somewhat ambiguously in Glottolog, and 
this is the first time in many years of using Glottolog that I see this 
kind of inconsistency.  On the one hand, French only appears as one 
language (one of two in the small branch "global french", with Nouchi), 
but on the other hand, Gallo, as /Normand/ and /Poitevin/ (within the 
"languages-d'Oil"-dialectal-cluster of French), and alongside 
/Dgernesiais/ and /Jerriais/, has a coloured symbol on the language maps.

I will verify with the editors of Glottolog how this discrepancy is to 
be interpreted.  As I said, this is the first time I see a discrepancy 
between the languages count and the symbols on the map.

Best greetings,

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 04/06/2021 17:36, John Cowan wrote:
> References in the English WP page: 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo_language#References>.
>
> References (lots of them) in the French WP page:  
> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo#R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences>.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:16 PM Doug Ewell <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     The Glottolog reference may be of some interest, because it links
>     to Glottolog's tree structure and that may facilitate discussion.
>
>     just been mentioned somewhere in literature — without performing
>     any additional research, as we and ISO 639 do — the existence of a
>     Gallo variety in some detail. The Wikipedia article you cited
>     below has 24 references; you might start there and pick the ones
>     that you feel provide a useful description.
>
>     --
>     <http://ewellic.org>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:59:39 -0600

Before I start working up a registration form for Gallo, based on the references provided, are we *absolutely* certain we do not want to consider registering it as a primary language subtag outside of ISO 639?

I realize this is a nearly heretical question, and I'm not necessarily arguing in favor, but I thought the question should be asked. This is probably as close to being a distinct language as any we have previously registered as a variant. The differences between Gallo and Standard French, the language ISO 639-3 says Gallo is a dialect of, are rather substantial.

The comparison to Occitan may be relevant. Occitan has an ISO 639 language code element — alpha-2, yet — and the varieties we recently registered (aranes, auvern, cisaup, etc.) have a Prefix of 'oc', not 'fr'. So for Gallo, we would want to consider whether the parent relationship to Standard French is similar to the relationship of Aranese (etc.) to whatever "Occitan" means.

See Section 3.6, first bullet point for BCP 47 guidance on this. I would consider the ISO 639-3 Registrar's comment, near the bottom of the May 17 message on this list, as evidence of "an attempt to register the language with ISO 639" that was rejected.

Feel free to shout "NO!" at top voice, but I wanted to make sure it was at least considered.

---

From: Hugh Paterson III <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 07:53:11 +0200

Is there a published literature in Gallo rather than just about Gallo? If
that is the case and the number of items published along with the number of
publishers (I believe the threshold is something like 15 and 5
respectively) are met then application to ISO 639-2 can be made. Then ISO
639-3 will sync due to administrative process with no further need to apply
to the ISO 639-3 registrar. This path then simplifies the job here in
deterring the relationship between parent language and variety code.

- Hugh

On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 1:59 AM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Before I start working up a registration form for Gallo, based on the
> references provided, are we *absolutely* certain we do not want to consider
> registering it as a primary language subtag outside of ISO 639?
>
> I realize this is a nearly heretical question, and I'm not necessarily
> arguing in favor, but I thought the question should be asked. This is
> probably as close to being a distinct language as any we have previously
> registered as a variant. The differences between Gallo and Standard French,
> the language ISO 639-3 says Gallo is a dialect of, are rather substantial.
>
> The comparison to Occitan may be relevant. Occitan has an ISO 639 language
> code element — alpha-2, yet — and the varieties we recently registered
> (aranes, auvern, cisaup, etc.) have a Prefix of 'oc', not 'fr'. So for
> Gallo, we would want to consider whether the parent relationship to
> Standard French is similar to the relationship of Aranese (etc.) to
> whatever "Occitan" means.
>
> See Section 3.6, first bullet point for BCP 47 guidance on this. I would
> consider the ISO 639-3 Registrar's comment, near the bottom of the May 17
> message on this list, as evidence of "an attempt to register the language
> with ISO 639" that was rejected.
>
-- 
All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone
Paris, France

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 00:21:20 -0600

Hugh Paterson III wrote:

> Is there a published literature in Gallo rather than just about Gallo?
> If that is the case and the number of items published along with the
> number of publishers (I believe the threshold is something like 15 and
> 5 respectively) are met then application to ISO 639-2 can be made.
> Then ISO 639-3 will sync due to administrative process with no further
> need to apply to the ISO 639-3 registrar. This path then simplifies
> the job here in deterring the relationship between parent language and
> variety code.

ISO 639-2/RA might still agree with 639-3/RA that Gallo is a dialect of French and not a separate language. AFAICT, that determination by 639-3 was not influenced by the amount of literature in Gallo.

---

From: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:00:29 -0300

The usual procedure is that for a language which has already an ISO 
639-3 identifier, one requests for it to be also included in ISO 639-2, 
based on the criteria given on the LOC pages 
<https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/criteria2.html>.  I am not aware 
of any case where a language would first be included in ISO 639-2 (after 
ISO 639-3 was established).  It would be interesting to test that in 
this case, if there was indeed enough literature etc. IN the language, 
but I am pretty sure that the answer would be that first one would have 
to make the case that we are dealing with a language with the ISO 639-3 
RA (registration authority), SIL international.

The amount of literature is not at all a criterion for ISO 639-3, as 
even moribund or extinct languages without any literature will receive 
an entry if they are shown to be (have been) distinct languages.

Best, Sebastian

---

From: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:43:46 -0300

Dear all,

I have answer from the Glottolog editors.  As it turns out, in 
Glottolog, the appearance on the map with a coloured symbol (which also 
appears in the tree) does not have anything to do with being or not a 
language.  Dialects for which the editors happen to have a suitable 
geolocation will also receive such a representation, whithout that being 
any claim about being or not a language.  It just happens that 99%+ of 
the entries which have e geolocations are languages.  (Families and 
subfamiliss do not receive a geolocation but are characterized by the 
geolocation of their 'children'.)

So Gallo is indeed, in Glottolog, classified as a dialect of French, 
belonging to the langues d'Oil dialect group or cluster, and not a 
language.

That, of course, could be contested, and I believe that there are 
several scholars who would hold that rather French is one of the 
varieties of the /langue d'Oil/ language, or one of the languages of the 
/langues d'Oil/ branch of Western Romance. (That may well have been the 
situation a few centuries ago, as Hugh rightly stated.)

As I said, the editors have decided to follow Agard, Frederick B. 1984 
<https://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/301288> as the most 
reliable or best informed source on this question -- if someone feels 
that this needs to be corrected and has a reference of at least 
comparable scholarly quality that shows that another genealogical 
analysis is superior, they can send that to the editors.

Sebastian

-- 

On 04/06/2021 20:31, Sebastian Drude wrote:
> coloured SYMBOL in the tree and on the map, different from dialects 
> and other varieties.
>
> create entries which are flagged as "*Unattested*". They are not 
> listed in the regular language family trees, byt have a listing of 
> their own: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/unat1236
>
> This is *NOT* true and a very strange thing to assert (based on 
> what?).  In my experience, the Glottolog editors, very much to the 
> contrary, are very careful about their decision about what to count as 
> a language, and about their internal classification, and they always 
> document the basis for their decisions, indicating the reference to 
> the work which they believe is the most well informed.  (For French, 
> this work is Agard, Frederick B. 1984 
> <https://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/301288>: 83-90.)  They 
> keep up with new work and change their representations accordingly.  
> They are open to debate and are grateful for references that state 
> other opinions.
>
> Although it might not be *sufficient*, I do believe that we should 
> take Glottolog seriously and that, when postulating a different 
> decision than that from the Glottolog editors, we need to justify that 
> very well.
>
> *
> *
>
> this is the first time in many years of using Glottolog that I see 
> this kind of inconsistency.  On the one hand, French only appears as 
> one language (one of two in the small branch "global french", with 
> Nouchi), but on the other hand, Gallo, as /Normand/ and /Poitevin/ 
> (within the "languages-d'Oil"-dialectal-cluster of French), and 
> alongside /Dgernesiais/ and /Jerriais/, has a coloured symbol on the 
> language maps.
>
>>     any additional research, as we and ISO 639 do — the existence of
>>     a Glottocode for Gallo is certainly not "sufficient" by itself to

---

From: Rembert Eufe <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 15:49:17 +0200

Dear all,

thank you very much for your considerations. I propose to indicate a  
more recent source, e.g. the chapter which I attach again for those  
who might not have received my message of some weeks ago (Smith, John  
Charles (2016): "French and northern Gallo-Romance", in: Ledgeway,  
Adam / Maiden, Martin (edd.): The Oxford Guide to the Romance  
Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 292-318,  
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0018; in this article, Gallo  
is mentioned several times as one of the Langue-d'Oil dialects and  
located on the map on p. 293).

In the Romance speaking area, during the last decades we can observe  
certain efforts to revalue many non-standard regional idioms by  
questioning the division between languages and dialects (which in  
certain periods of the past might have had a status and use similar to  
the first). Nevertheless, Gallo seems to me one of the less  
language-like and most dialect-like among the langues-d'oil, in  
comparison e.g. to (Anglo-)Norman, Walloon or Picard. But whatever its  
status is, I personally would be glad just to have an ISO-Code for it  
for my corpus annotation, be it that of a dialect or that of a  
language. So if I might return to my original request, I think we can  
conclude that Gallo is sufficiently well known and described in the  
literature so that it deserves an ISO-Code?

Yours,

Rembert Eufe

Zitat von Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>:

> Glottolog, the appearance on the map with a coloured symbol (which  
> also appears in the tree) does not have anything to do with being or  
> not a language.  Dialects for which the editors happen to have a  
> suitable geolocation will also receive such a representation,  
> whithout that being any claim about being or not a language.  It  
> just happens that 99%+ of the entries which have e geolocations are  
> languages.  (Families and subfamiliss do not receive a geolocation  
> but are characterized by the geolocation of their 'children'.)
>
> varieties of the /langue d'Oil/ language, or one of the languages of  
> the /langues d'Oil/ branch of Western Romance. (That may well have  
> been the situation a few centuries ago, as Hugh rightly stated.)
>
> As I said, the editors have decided to follow Agard, Frederick B.  
> 1984 <https://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/301288> as the  
> most reliable or best informed source on this question -- if someone  
> feels that this needs to be corrected and has a reference of at  
> least comparable scholarly quality that shows that another  
> genealogical analysis is superior, they can send that to the editors.
>
> Sebastian
>
> -- 
>
>> This is true, but *the different status of these entities is  
>> clearly visible in Glottolog*.  A full language (1) is COUNTED (it  
>> appears in the language counts for language (sub)families) and (2)  
>> receives a coloured SYMBOL in the tree and on the map, different  
>> from dialects and other varieties.
>>
>> This is *NOT* true -- the editors of Glottolog are very careful  
>> before they accept the evidence for the existence of an alledged  
>> language.  Such spurious "languages" for which there is no clear  
>> evidence, they create entries which are flagged as "*Unattested*".  
>> They are not listed in the regular language family trees, byt have  
>> a listing of their own:  
>> contrary, are very careful about their decision about what to count  
>> as a language, and about their internal classification, and they  
>> always document the basis for their decisions, indicating the  
>> reference to the work which they believe is the most well  
>> informed.  (For French, this work is Agard, Frederick B. 1984  
>> keep up with new work and change their representations  
>> accordingly.  They are open to debate and are grateful for  
>> references that state other opinions.
>>
>> decision than that from the Glottolog editors, we need to justify  
>> that very well.
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> Strangely, Gallo is represented somewhat ambiguously in Glottolog,  
>> and this is the first time in many years of using Glottolog that I  
>> see this kind of inconsistency.  On the one hand, French only  
>> appears as one language (one of two in the small branch "global  
>> french", with Nouchi), but on the other hand, Gallo, as /Normand/  
>> and /Poitevin/ (within the "languages-d'Oil"-dialectal-cluster of  
>> French), and alongside /Dgernesiais/ and /Jerriais/, has a coloured  
>> symbol on the language maps.
>>
>> I will verify with the editors of Glottolog how this discrepancy is  
>> to be interpreted.  As I said, this is the first time I see a  
>> discrepancy between the languages count and the symbols on the map.
>>
>> Best greetings,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>> --

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 18:41:18 +0000

Dear Rembert

ISO 639 does not code dialects, regardless of the number of documents in that particular variety or the number of documents that discuss the variety. Thus, I think you should consider proposing registration of a language variant subtab for use in BCP 47 language tags.

Regards,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Rembert Eufe
Sent: June 20, 2021 6:49 AM
To: Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>
Cc: Registrar ISO639-3 <[email-masked]>; John Cowan <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Variant subtag for Gallo

Dear all,

thank you very much for your considerations. I propose to indicate a more recent source, e.g. the chapter which I attach again for those who might not have received my message of some weeks ago (Smith, John Charles (2016): "French and northern Gallo-Romance", in: Ledgeway, Adam / Maiden, Martin (edd.): The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 292-318, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0018; in this article, Gallo is mentioned several times as one of the Langue-d'Oil dialects and located on the map on p. 293).

In the Romance speaking area, during the last decades we can observe certain efforts to revalue many non-standard regional idioms by questioning the division between languages and dialects (which in certain periods of the past might have had a status and use similar to the first). Nevertheless, Gallo seems to me one of the less language-like and most dialect-like among the langues-d'oil, in comparison e.g. to (Anglo-)Norman, Walloon or Picard. But whatever its status is, I personally would be glad just to have an ISO-Code for it for my corpus annotation, be it that of a dialect or that of a language. So if I might return to my original request, I think we can conclude that Gallo is sufficiently well known and described in the literature so that it deserves an ISO-Code?

Yours,

Rembert Eufe

Zitat von Sebastian Drude <[email-masked]>:

> suitable geolocation will also receive such a representation, whithout 
> that being any claim about being or not a language.  It just happens 
> that 99%+ of the entries which have e geolocations are languages.  
> (Families and subfamiliss do not receive a geolocation but are 
> characterized by the geolocation of their 'children'.)
>
> 1984 
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglot
> tolog.org%2Fresource%2Freference%2Fid%2F301288&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C3
> 1046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1
> %7C0%7C637597938297114761%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=b0yecCCiNTdfsdqHZoKhmikAA6BOLMI6g9YroIXl74c%3D&amp;reserved=0> as the most reliable or best informed source on this question -- if someone feels that this needs to be corrected and has a reference of at least comparable scholarly quality that shows that another genealogical analysis is superior, they can send that to the editors.
>
> 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
>> They are not listed in the regular language family trees, byt have a 
>> listing of their own:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglot
>> tolog.org%2Fresource%2Flanguoid%2Fid%2Funat1236&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7
>> C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%
>> 7C1%7C0%7C637597938297114761%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
>> MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%
>> 2FZ%2FfqWoBM%2Fx6obtxUdlJ%2BA4D92FYfCUNt%2BVTjnflxUM%3D&amp;reserved=
>> 0
>>
>> explained here: 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglot
>> tolog.org%2Fglottolog%2Fglottologinformation&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31
>> 046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1
>> %7C0%7C637597938297114761%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA
>> iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XMdS
>> pUJ5Bi0cDF2VUmMD5IZjzvnbOABLTOPqeINZDCM%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> reference to the work which they believe is the most well informed.  
>> (For French, this work is Agard, Frederick B. 1984
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglo
>> ttolog.org%2Fresource%2Freference%2Fid%2F301288&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7
>> C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%
>> 7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=O8%2FNJU8Y3rSVmsFYv9INPTK6M4siF8wtXF6Bt1KVADI%3D&amp;reserved=0>: 83-90.)  They keep up with new work and change their representations accordingly.  They are open to debate and are grateful for references that state other opinions.
>>
>> see this kind of inconsistency.  On the one hand, French only appears 
>> as one language (one of two in the small branch "global french", with 
>> 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 
>> 04/06/2021 17:36, John Cowan wrote:
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGallo_language%23References&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=b6HtUdoW6tWGJcCEbuSgmooHNB8ivTRzPZSBZMEIybI%3D&amp;reserved=0>.
>>>
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGallo%23R%25C3%25A9f%25C3%25A9rences&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=QJZo6l842xKAQx8FSp8EytDqPoBPAHksmK3itPBlXds%3D&amp;reserved=0>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglottolog.org%2Fresource%2Flanguoid%2Fid%2Fgall1275&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=9xnisgDz1YAMxL2j5Zhyuu0VIkF1xYoDNbTnziuZQHk%3D&amp;reserved=0 ?
>>>
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewe
>>> llic.org%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7
>>> C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnk
>>> nown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
>>> WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=dNYBior4%2FJioXMUjuCvpqWlt66JXdgw
>>> imKK%2BxQOha5o%3D&amp;reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>    >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGallo_language&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=o3F1MJae5j%2Fi%2BfFxezBeCkarGKa7sky5wwR6W2fg9Ek%3D&amp;reserved=0 .
>>>
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>>> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%
>>> 7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa
>>> a%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
>>> jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sda
>>> ta=TRoncT6XQoFb3SknOb29bJQW9BeeeLZUR4Je6QRlPWo%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>>> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%
>>> 7C31046d11e6e14335637408d933f2497b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa
>>> a%7C1%7C0%7C637597938297124746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
>>> jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sda
>>> ta=TRoncT6XQoFb3SknOb29bJQW9BeeeLZUR4Je6QRlPWo%3D&amp;reserved=0

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 18:04:30 -0600

Peter Constable wrote:

> ISO 639 does not code dialects, regardless of the number of documents
> in that particular variety or the number of documents that discuss the
> variety. Thus, I think you should consider proposing registration of a
> language variant subtab for use in BCP 47 language tags.

Indeed, I had already created a proposed record and registration form for a variant subtag for Gallo, based on the discussions from June 4 and 5. However, I just became aware that I never posted them to this list, due to some lingering questions (since answered, or so I thought) about language vs. dialect.

Rembert's renewed call for an "ISO-Code" makes me wonder if he has now changed his mind and no longer wants a variant subtag under BCP 47, but instead wishes to pursue the ISO 639 "full language" path again.

While BCP 47 tags are just as useful and as widely recognized, in most cases, as ISO 639 language code elements for identifying linguistic content, some people prefer the ISO 639 path due to a perception of greater prestige. There is a sense that once an international organization has identified something as "a language," that can be used to apply pressure to governments to declare the language "official" or "protected" and allocate funds for education, public signage, voting materials, etc. in that language. There may also be some standards or specifications that insist on ISO 639 coding to identify a language or variety, and do not recognize BCP 47 tags. It's not clear to me which situation is motivating Rembert's request.

We will probably not be inclined to register a variant subtag for Gallo if the question of assigning it an ISO 639 code element is still open, or is being relitigated. So it would be best to get closure on that part before I post the proposed BCP 47 forms to the list.

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:32:14 +0000

In his last mail, Rembert said,

> Nevertheless, Gallo seems to me one of the less language-like and most dialect-like among the langues-d'oil

I don't see any point of pursuing an ISO 639 identifier. Yes, Rembert said he'd prefer that, but a preference for an ISO 639 identifier doesn't change that it's doesn't qualify for one since ISO 639 doesn't code dialects.

Peter