Court rules against Yup ’'ik as an historically written language ...

[Andrew Cunningham]

Begs the question, is modern American English as it is currently written a
historically written language?

Andrew

2008/7/24 Donald Z. Osborn <dzo at bisharat.net>:

> What is the background on this category "historically written language"?
> (Academically, legally.) Although there may be a use for such a description,
> it sounds like it can too readily be misused as a pretext for linguistic
> discrimination.
>
> Don
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:
> ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of phil cash cash
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:33 PM
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: [ILAT] Court rules against Yup''ik as an historically written
> language (fwd media link)
>
> Alaska Public Radio Network (APRN)
>
> Court rules against Yup''ik as an historically written language
>
> Fri, July 18, 2008
> Posted in Alaska News, Top Stories
>
> A Federal Judge has ruled that Yup''ik is not an historically written
> language.
> The ruling is part of a lawsuit brought on by Yup''ik elders and tribes
> against
> the State of Alaska and the City of Bethel. The ruling by Judge Timothy
> Burgess
> could limit the kind of language assistance the state is required to
> provide.
>
> Shane Iverson, KYUK - Bethel
>
> Access radio podcast below:
>
> http://aprn.org/2008/07/18/court-rules-against-yupik-as-a-historically-written-language/
>



-- 
Andrew Cunningham
Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
State Library of Victoria
Australia

andrewc at vicnet.net.au
lang.support at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20080724/11aea8d8/attachment.htm>