Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /

Connection Queries?

Page  Page 12 of 13:  « Previous  1  ...  10  11  12  13  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#166 | Posted: 23 Sep 2012 05:26 
Interesting, I was not expecting Gyeonghuigung. Thanks for the info!

Author winterkjm
Registered
#167 | Posted: 24 Sep 2012 02:18 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Inscribed in connection with an anniversary
"Sometimes the process takes place slightly out of sync with the actual anniversary because of the uncertainty of the timescale to gain inscription."

It seems likely for at least some of these nominations an anniversary inscription was sought. All three nominations gained inscription 1 after a significant anniversary.

Hwaseong Fortress (201 years)
1796 - 1997

Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty (First Tomb) (601 years)
1408 - 2009

Jongmyo Shrine (601 years)
1394 - 1995

Should this be included or not?

Author winterkjm
Registered
#168 | Posted: 27 Sep 2012 00:31 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Oops, I made a mistake! I sent a couple connections for the "Furthest Distance Apart" Connection. They were meant for the Isolated connection, but I think all of them have already been included. Sorry to confuse you Els!

Author winterkjm
Registered
#169 | Posted: 2 Oct 2012 05:41 
Hallasan Mountain of Jeju Island contains 3 orchid species. "These species are endangered due to habitat destruction and to illegal collection for ornamental plants." - nomination file

Cymbidium kanran
Neofinetia falcata
Aerides japonicum


I used the UNEP-WCMC website and found all 3 species, but each file was somewhat incomplete, there was no mention of Jeju island (that I saw), but all included S. Korea in the distribution section.

Orchids are fairly common throughout the world, assuming that this connection is highlighting unique variations of orchids in specific WHS's, perhaps Jeju does not qualify.

Author elsslots
Admin
#170 | Posted: 2 Oct 2012 13:17 
winterkjm:
Orchids are fairly common throughout the world

Yes I know, but I wanted to have another connection for the natural sites and the sites without much connections in general. Think of orchids as the cathedrals of the natural world!

Author elsslots
Admin
#171 | Posted: 3 Oct 2012 05:26 
For those who are looking for another project "to do":
I am in the process of upgrading the texts, links and connections for the natural sites. If you have an interesting new Connection to suggest for natural sites, please mail it to me!

I'd like to put a (temporary) hold to connections about the WH process, when they are bordering "the obvious" (such as "first", "last", "only").

Author Solivagant
Registered
#172 | Posted: 4 Oct 2012 05:13 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The definition given for the new connection of "Cirques" viz "an amphitheatre-like valley head, formed at the head of a valley glacier by erosion." isn't fully correct - especially when 2 of the 3 original examples are not the result of glacial erosion!

a. There have been no glaciers on Reunion (despite the name of its highest peak being "Piton des Neiges")! The "Cirques" there have been caused by water erosion in a Caldera landscape.
b. The "Cirque de Navacelles" in the Causses is the result of "Fluvial Erosion" on a river meander - not glacial.
c. The "Cirque du Bout du Monde" in the Causses is also fluvial in origin and is , I think, an example of underground erosion and roof collapse to create the flat valley bottom and end cliff

As with a number of geomorphological terms in use around the World, that of "Cirque" has a significant cultural/linguistic background and is applied to the landform as much as to the causation and different terms are used in different linguistic areas.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#173 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 04:02 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Interesting recent "Connection" re "Languages Isolate".

But how "close" does the connection have to be? Merely that at some time people who lived within the inscribed area spoke a "Lanugage Isolate" e.g the Redwood connection for Karuk and the Discovery Coast connection for Pataxo. Or should we be looking for something stronger which relates to the man made structures which are present in the site today? I guess you could argue that the natural elements are in some almost mystic way imbued with the spirit of those who previously spoke the relelvant language within the boundary!

If this argument is to be adopted then what about the Rhaetian Railway? The Rhaetic Language was, as I understand it, a "language isolate".

Personally I would have thought that we should limit this connection to cultural /mixed sites where there are things present which were built by those speaking such a language -thus excluding both the purely natural sites and the Rhaetian Railway!

And what about "Korean". The connection list already contains some examples of "controversial" languages isolate. As I understand it Korean is normally designated as one -but there are debates about its Altaic origins - or possibly just through long close contact. Any views/info from Winterkjm on this?

Author Assif
Registered
#174 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 06:58 | Edited by: Assif 
The Altaic suggestion has been out of fashion since the 90ies. Of course there are still linguists who propose it, but it is certainly not established. Its status is similar to the Elamo-Dravidian or Haida-Na Dene stipulations or the Meroitic association with Afro-Asiatic.
The reason for treating Korean as belonging to the Koreanic language family is mainly the Jeju dialect, often regarded as a separate language, as well as the historical languages of the three kingdoms of Korea. These languages are now often grouped under Koreanic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreanic_languages (and still separate from Japonic, Turkic and other component branches of the suggested Altaic hypothesis).
As to Rhaetic:
1) It is hardly documented (similar to Harappan and contrary to all language isolates suggested).
2) It is most probably related to Etruscan -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrhenian_languages -
but still as there is so little evidence from that language it is most accurately defined as unclassifiable.
3) Rhaetian has nothing to do with the Rhaetian railway whereas Pataxo for example is spoken within the boundaries of the inscribed area by tribes acknowledged by the nomination file.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#175 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 08:32 | Edited by: Solivagant 
So, help me - does a language cease to be "Isolate" simply because there are other languages/dialects which make up a "family" of at least 2 languages (as could be regarded as being the case with "Korean" and "Jeju Dialect") or because it (and others in its immediate family) has/have no clear antecedents? I understood that it was the latter which was the criterion for being considered a "language isolate" - "one that has not been demonstrated to descend from an ancestor common with any other language." - Wiki

If the Jeju "language" and modern Korean and the historical languages of Korea constitute a "language family" (which thereby excludes them from the definition of "Language Isolate") - albeit without any clear antecedent from beyond the area why then does "Etruscan " constitute a "language isolate" when, apparently it is considered part of a Tyrsenian language family. ("The majority consensus is that Etruscan is related only to other members of what is called the Tyrsenian language family, an "isolate family": a family of languages for which no relationship to other language groups is known" Wiki)

I was not of course suggesting that Rhaetian language (Rhaetic) had any direct connection with the Rhaeitian Railway - merely that if "being (once) spoken in the area" is the criterion then it would meet it! The argument was something of a deliberate "provocation" to tease out the issues!

Re Rhaetic being "unclassifiable" i note that the extinct language of Pataxo (no longer spoken by the Pataxo people) is also described as "unclassified" in Wiki " It is unclassified, due to lack of data, but has some resemblances to Maxakalían. "

Author Assif
Registered
#176 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 10:25 | Edited by: Assif 
A language isolate is indeed a language that cannot be shown to be related to any other language. This is akin to saying that the protolanguage from which it evolved cannot be reconstructed applying the comparative method (i.e. comparing its vocabulary with cognates from related languages). The only problem with this definition is that dialects do function exactly like separate language in this regard. Take Basque for instance, a well known language isolate. If you compare its different dialects you can indeed reconstruct a Proto-Basque. Therefore, the definition of a group of variants as a small language family or as a language isolate with several dialects is often arbitrary.
The main difference between Koreanic and Tyrsenian is that Koreanic has two living languages (Korean and Jejuan) which can be compared and studied, whereas Rhaetic and Lemnian (the two languages suggested to be inculded in Tyrsenian together with Etruscan) are barely documented. That's why language classification distinguishes unclassifiable languages and unclassified ones. Unclassified languages are languages (living or extinct) that are temporarily considered isolate simply because comparative analysis of that language hasn't taken place yet. Meroitic is a good example. It survived in texts and hence could in principle be studied and compared with other languages. It might then be properly classified. However, its script hasn't been properly deciphered. Therefore, until further information is made available it remains unclassified (or a language isolate).
Rhaetic on the other hand could never be classified since it simply did not survive.
I wasn't aware of that, but this indeed seems to be the situation in Pataxo as well.
I would therefore suggest to exclude them both.
Re family isolate: "family isolate" is self-contradictory. If languages are related they are no language isolate. If a family is related to another family it is strictly speaking not a family anymore, but a branch of a larger language family.
And yet another remark - every language isolate constitutes a family of its own. In historical linguistics it is very popular to look for family affiliation for language isolates and stipulate new families. However, until such hypotheses are established and widely accepted these isolates should better still be regarded as such. This is true of all listed isolates here.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#177 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 11:55 
Thanks Assif - I see I need to do a bit more work on Historical Linguisitics!

Author winterkjm
Registered
#178 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 12:26 
Perhaps the connection description should be edited to demonstrate a specific connection between the language isolate and WHS. As far as Korean goes it would not be useful or informative to include all of Korea's 10 WHS's, and the 2 Goguryeo WHS in China and North Korea.

We can be relatively certain that Korean is a language isolate,. Some linguists have tried to link Japanese and Korean, but this notion is widely considered ridiculous. Korean nationalists in fear of having their language linked with Japan, promoted the Altaic/Mongol language theory. This notion has also been widely viewed as lacking any real basis in reality.

I would not consider it worth a connection if a language isolate was spoken not only within a WHS, but also through a large geographic region surrounding or near the property. To me this connection requires a special link between the language isolate and the WHS.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#179 | Posted: 13 Jan 2013 12:36 | Edited by: winterkjm 
In regards to language families and dialects, it should be noted there are numerous distinctive dialects in Korea. Besides the above mentioned Jeju dialect, other pronounced ones are centered around Busan, Seoul, Jeolla province, and Pyongyang to name a few. These dialects are often suprisingly different considering their relative short distance apart, the Jeju dialect is viewed as the most divergent. This makes sense because of its historical and geographical seperation from the Korean mainland.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#180 | Posted: 17 May 2015 18:30 
Replica Cultural Sites

Does this connection require the entire WHS to be only visitable by Replica, or just very important or key components?

Chauvet Cave is the obvious recent site to include, but there are more sites that have significant portions or components only visited by replica. Therefore, I am asking what is the requirement for this connection?

Page  Page 12 of 13:  « Previous  1  ...  10  11  12  13  Next » 
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections / Connection Queries? Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®