: → CCY0927: 你硬要扯 ISO 639-3 就等同不存在上海话 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
: → CCY0927: 或温州话等语言名称，只能叫吴语，而上海 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
看到你最后的回应，我终于懂你的逻辑了。你的认知是：
“上海话是独立语言，‘吴语’只是它的分类。”
“台语是独立语言，‘闽南语’只是它的分类。”
哇呜
逻辑自助餐ㄟ
按照你的神逻辑：
柴犬也不是狗了因为柴犬有自己的长相、毛色（像你说的语言差异），所以柴犬是独立物
种。
“犬科”或“狗”只是它的分类，不代表柴犬就是狗。
你觉得这种说法在生物学界会被当成天才还是笑话？
在语言学里，wuu (吴语) 或 nan (闽南语) 被定义为 Individual Language (个体语言)
。
上海话或台语，在学术本质上就是这个个体语言下的变体。
听不懂没关系我简单跟你解释
你心爱的台语就是闽南支语的分方言而已，不管是上海话还是台语
大家都是支语，不要分那么细好咪
可怜
:
→ CCY0927: 话、温州话是可沟通的方言变体。不管是研 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
: → CCY0927: 究论文，或是该语言使用族群，应该不会同 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
: → CCY0927: 意这类看法。 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
: → CCY0927: 有独立 ISO 639-3 代码，但彼此却可沟通 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:53
: → CCY0927: 的语言案例不少：东干语（dng） vs. 官话 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: （cmn）、捷克语（ces） vs. 斯洛伐克语 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: （slk）、白俄罗斯语（bel） vs. 乌克兰 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 语（ukr）、印地语（hin） vs. 乌尔都语 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: （urd）、马来西亚语（zsm） vs. 印度尼 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 西亚语（ind）、保加利亚语（bul） vs. 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 马其顿语（mkd）、塞尔维亚语（srp） vs. 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 克罗地亚语（hrv） vs. 波士尼亚语（ 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: bos） vs. 蒙特内哥罗语（cnr）…… 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: ISO 639-3 代码和系属分类是两回事，并不 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 是说有代码就表示两种语言不能沟通或是不 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:54
: → CCY0927: 同系属。键盘“闽南语”大师别太执著于代 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:55
: → CCY0927: 码和系属分类之间的关系，特别是现阶段汉 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:55
: → CCY0927: 语系统底下的语言，在代码上并没有一个良 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:55
: → CCY0927: 好的对应关系。 111.255.109.20 04/07 22:55
哇呜开始否认ISO639-3了，悲伤第一阶段？
我们先复习一下你先前的精彩表现，先是拿出2014年就废除的ISO639-6来杠临时抱佛脚被
抓包，问AI起码也做查证好吗？
接着又在那边跳针维基百科没有写台语的分类
笑死，拿维基百科来质疑ISO639-3，就问你谁？
真的很好奇你所谓的研调是在哪里做的？暖暖蛇吗？
你要不要看你列举的大部分案例都是实质分裂独立出去的国家
这叫Ausbau language
指一种语言因社会或政治需求，透过人为的标准化（如制定语法、拼写、辞典）从方言发
展而成的独立语言。
即使与其他变体结构相似、可互通，但因发展出独立的书面系统而被视为另一种语言
这种情况下当然可以互通因为他们是政治因素分裂出去的“独立语言”所以它有独立代码
。
问题你台语目前不适用这些案例啊，你又没独立，你主子自己都说中华民国已经是主权独
立国家了不需要独立。
那只能从另一种情况试
Abstand language
指两种语言因结构、词汇差异过大，即便没有政治或文化干预，双方母语者也无法互相理
解（即不具备互通性）。这是基于语言客观差异的分类，例如汉语与英语。
问题你台语就没有足够的研究文献能证明自己跟闽南语落差大到无法互通可以独立
宾州大学的论坛有针对这起申请展开讨论
July 27, 2024 @ 5:56 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Classification,
Standard language, Topolects
previous post | next post
[Serendipitously, right while we are in the midst of energetic discussions
over the classification of and terminology for the languages of Taiwan, I
received a communication from the international body that is charged with
such matters for all the languages of the world, namely, an arm of the ISO.
The following (after the page break) is a guest post by Janell Nordmoe,
Registrar of ISO 639-3 Language Coding Agency. For those who are not
familiar with it, "ISO 639 is a standard by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) concerned with representation of languages and
language groups." (source)
There have been significant changes with the publication of 639:2023,
including that the decision on CRs rests with the Maintenance Agency, not SIL
as Language Coding Agency for 639-3.
This link describes the four sets within ISO 639, the Maintenance Agency.
At the link to the info about the 639 standard, the public reports link is
the bottom of the page under Public Reports from the Maintenance Agency.]
——————————————————-
New language code proposals for Taiwanese
While researching Taiwanese, I encountered your work in several places
including Language Log, which led me to write to you. The short question I'm
requesting your comment on is, how is Taiwanese distinct from Min Nan
Chinese/Hokkien [nan] in terms of literature and ethnolinguistic identity?
The long version: In 2021 the Registration Authority for ISO 639-3, SIL
International, received two requests to create codes for Taiwanese in the
comprehensive set codes for world languages. They can be found at Taigi
2021-044 and Taiwanese 2021-045 (part of an 11-way split of [nan] Chinese,
Min Nan) proposal. The consideration of these two requests was delayed due to
the expected revision of ISO 639 (which was finally completed at the end of
2023) and is now underway.
Both change requests lack sufficient evidence from scholarship with regard to
the creation of a new language code for Taiwanese as distinct from [nan] Min
Nan Chinese, which both Ethnologue and Glottolog currently list as dialects
of [nan] (in the case of Glottolog, Taipei Hokkien is a sub-dialect of
Quan-zhang dialect).
According to the ISO 639:2023 standard, the distinction between a language
and a dialect is based on the criteria below. In the case of Taiwanese, we
have not found scholars making the case that Taiwanese is not intelligible
with Hokkien/Min Nan/[nan] as in (a). The best case seems to rest on the
distinct identity and distinct literature basis of criterion c.:
Two related language varieties are normally considered to belong to the same
individual language if speakers of each language variety have inherent
understanding of the other language variety at a functional level (they can
understand each other based on knowledge of their own language variety
without needing to learn the other variety)
Where spoken intelligibility is marginal, the existence of a common
literature or common ethnolinguistic identity with a central language variety
that both speaker communities understand is a strong indicator that they
should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same individual language
Where there is enough intelligibility between language varieties to enable
communication, they can nevertheless be treated as different individual
languages when they have long-standing, distinctly named ethnolinguistic
identities coupled with established linguistic normalization and literatures
that are distinct
Would you care to comment, for the benefit of the 639 Set 3 Language Coding
Agency and for the 639 Maintenance Agency (MA) voting members, on the
distinctiveness of Taiwanese from [nan] Min Nan in terms of
Literature
Ethnolinguistic identity
Articles and blogs describing Taiwanese tend to compare with Mandarin, or
lack distinction. between Taiwan and mainland China where [nan] is spoken.
Selected readings
"Taiwan(ese) Taiwanese" (7/22/24)
Taiwanese, Mandarin, and Taiwan's language situation
July 27, 2024 @ 5:56 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Classification,
Standard language, Topolects
Permalink
重点：
这两份变更请求都缺乏足够的学术证据，足以证明台语应作为一种独立于闽南语 [nan]
之外的语言来建立代码。目前，《民族语》（Ethnologue）与 Glottolog 均将台语列为
[nan] 的方言（在 Glottolog 中，台北话被归类为泉漳片下的子方言）。
哭啊你台罗仔到是给力一点拿出说服人的证据啊，不要整天窝在台湾自嗨骗自己人好吗?
怎么关键时刻软脚了？
笑死
国际认证
台语=支那闽南语
Get a job, okay?