headers
Doug Ewell | 8 Feb 19:08
Favicon

ISO 639-3 changes

ISO 639-3/RA has released its 2011 series of changes. With this series,
the RA approved 142 changes encompassing roughly 200 code elements. 
Clearly the rate of change has not diminished in the years following the
initial release of 639-3.

In the coming days or weeks, I'll be sending proposed records and
registration forms to keep the Registry in step with this. As in years
past, I'll try to send them out in batches, organized by the type of
639-3 change (retirement, new language, update).

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 24 Jan 21:06
Favicon

Revised record and form for Early Modern English

A few very minor editorial changes: reversed Added and Prefix in the
record to match canonical order in the Registry; removed redundant
"Cambridge" in two bibliographic references; added Wikipedia link.

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2012-02-05
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: tudor
Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
Added: 2012-02-05
Prefix: en
%%

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Doug Ewell
2. E-mail address of requester: doug at ewellic.org
3. Record Requested:

   Type: variant
   Subtag: tudor
   Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
   Prefix: en

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

   Represents the variety of English spoken and written approximately
   between 1500 and 1700, both popularly and by such authors as Donne,
   Dryden, Jonson, Kyd, Marlowe, Middleton, Milton, Shakespeare,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 22 Jan 18:31
Favicon

Re: Early Modern English

Yury Tarasievich <yury dot tarasievich at gmail dot com> wrote:

> The section 2.2.5 of RFC5646 does not explicitly
> require variant subtag to be context free or to
> refer to one language only, which is also what
> common sense suggests, as subtags are intended
> to form a context hierarchy, and are not
> supposed to be regarded out of context.

There's a fine line here. RFC 5646, Section 3.5 (page 44) says:

  Requests to add a 'Prefix' field to a variant subtag that imply a
  different semantic meaning SHOULD be rejected.  For example, a
  request to add the prefix "de" to the subtag '1994' so that the tag
  "de-1994" represented some German dialect or orthographic form would
  be rejected.  The '1994' subtag represents a particular Slovenian
  orthography, and the additional registration would change or blur the
  semantic meaning assigned to the subtag.  A separate subtag SHOULD be
  proposed instead.

This is the basis for my objection to using the same variant subtag for 
English and Cornish, when the subtag is supposed to refer to variations 
that are specific to the language(s) in question. For English we have 
specific differences in grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics (thou vs. 
ye/you), spelling, and even punctuation. Were the differences between 
Tudor Cornish and Modern Cornish the same, or just the same in 
principle? Over the years, probably most languages have made spelling 
more uniform, and grammar simpler.

RFC 5646 does allow variants to refer to more than one language, and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Doug Ewell | 21 Jan 22:49
Favicon

Proposed record and registration form for 'tudor'

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2012-02-05
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: tudor
Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
Prefix: en
Added: 2012-02-05
%%

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Doug Ewell
2. E-mail address of requester: doug at ewellic.org
3. Record Requested:

   Type: variant
   Subtag: tudor
   Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
   Prefix: en

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

   Represents the variety of English spoken and written approximately
   between 1500 and 1700, both popularly and by such authors as Donne,
   Dryden, Jonson, Kyd, Marlowe, Middleton, Milton, Shakespeare,
   Spenser, and Wyatt, as well as in the Authorized King James Version
   Bible (1611).

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 20 Jan 20:12
Favicon

Volapük

I'm fine with Michael's two registration forms. Here are the
corresponding proposed new records:

File-Date: 2012-01-28
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: rigik
Description: Volapük rigik
Description: Schleyer's Volapük
Description: Original Volapük
Description: Classic Volapük
Added: 2012-01-28
Prefix: vo

File-Date: 2012-01-28
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: nulik
Description: Volapük nulik
Description: Volapük perevidöl
Description: Volapük nulädik
Description: de Jong's Volapük
Description: New Volapük
Description: Revised Volapük
Description: Modern Volapük
Added: 2012-01-28
Prefix: vo
%%

Since the original requests were more than a week ago, these revised
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Everson | 20 Jan 12:08
Favicon
Gravatar

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Volapük rigik

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
1. Name of requester:

Michael Everson

2. E-mail address of requester:

everson <at> evertype.com

3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: rigik
Description: Volapük rigik
Description: Schleyer's Volapük
Description: Original Volapük
Description: Classic Volapük
Prefix: vo

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

This variant subtag is used to identify the original version of Volapük published by Johann Martin
Schleyer in 1879. "Volapük rigik" means 'Original Volapük'.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

Schleyer, Johann Martin. 1888. Groſses Wörterbuch der Universalsprache volapük. Vierte, sehr
vermehrte Auflage. Konstanz am Bodensee: Verlag von Schleyers Zentralbüro der Weltsprache.

6. Any other relevant information:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Everson | 20 Jan 12:08
Favicon
Gravatar

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Volapük nulik

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
1. Name of requester:

Michael Everson

2. E-mail address of requester:

everson <at> evertype.com

3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: nulik
Description: Volapük nulik
Description: Volapük perevidöl
Description: Volapük nulädik
Description: de Jong's Volapük
Description: New Volapük
Description: Revised Volapük
Description: Modern Volapük
Prefix: vo

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

This variant subtag is used to identify the revised version of Volapük published by Arie de Jong in 1931.
"Volapük nulik" means 'New Volapük'; "perevidöl" means 'revised'; "nulädik" means 'modern'. 

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

de Jong, Arie. 1931. Wörterbuch der Weltsprache: Vödabuk Volapüka pro deutänapükans. Dabükot
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sean B. Palmer | 16 Jan 11:39
Gravatar

Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 108, Issue 12

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I do think 'tudor' beateth, sorry, beats the hell out of '1611kjv' or
> '1623shak' or '1590spen', all of which would seem even more limiting.

There will more likely be misuse of "en-tudor", with people thinking
it only applies to the Tudor period, than there will of
misappropriations of "-earlymod".

Remember, people will be seeing "en-tudor" used in source and copying
and pasting, coming to their own conclusions about what it means. That
is the same type of argument as the one against "-earlymod", that
people will reuse the variant for other languages because the came to
their own conclusions about how it can be used.

As Michael says, the string can be opaque. That would be much better,
because it would force people to look up the meaning.

Michael Everson wrote:

> Thus "en-lkjhgfds" could be a tag.

Other suggestions, then:

en-tustu (Tudor and Stuart)
en-16c17c (16th and 17th centuries)
en-16th17th (16th and 17th centuries)
en-1603lon (after 1603 London as a focal point)
en-c1603 (Circa 1603)
en-eamoe (EModE, genericised)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 15 Jan 23:46
Favicon

Re: Early Modern English

Sean B. Palmer <sean at miscoranda dot com> wrote:

> Poor Thomas Middleton would probably not have written anything at all
> in en-tudor, there'll be no language subtag for him.

The subtag value 'tudor' wouldn't necessarily constrain the subtag to
refer only to English written during the Tudor period. This is like
people who claim the letters 'G' and 'B' constrain the region subtag
'GB' to refer only to the island of Great Britain, excluding Northern
Ireland somehow, which is possible only if one ignores the Description
field "United Kingdom".

Description fields are what identify the meaning of a subtag. That's why
I insist that the Description value here not be "Tudor English", but
rather "Early Modern English", possibly with a range of years appended,
as Old English and Middle English have. Of course we would want rough
consensus on the approximate years, while avoiding an endless and
pointless quest for perfect precision. I could also live with a Comments
field, but again, not something exhaustive that tries to capture all
knowledge about EModE usage and history.

Of course I would still prefer 'emode' or 'earlymod', but I understand
the objections. A less-than-ideal subtag is better than none. I don't
intend to be a Congressional Republican about this, blocking all action
if I can't get exactly the outcome I want.

Michael wrote, about using this subtag for Cornish as well:

> Well, for one thing, we actually *call* Tudor Cornish by that name.
> But this is slightly analogous to that variety of Pinyin which was
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 15 Jan 03:12
Favicon

(unknown)

Sean wrote:

Using Maria's Fustian on EModE, we arrive at E.E.M.D.O., which as a
language subtag, en-eemdo, may be meet for the task?
--
Doug Ewell • doug <at> ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sean B. Palmer | 14 Jan 23:47
Gravatar

A Fustian Riddle

"I haue a deuise to make all well."
— Bottom, A Midsummer Night's Dream (3.1)

Shakespeare wrote Twelfth Night, or What You Will in around 1601, one
of the last of the Tudor plays. There is a "good practise in it to
make the Steward beleeve his Lady widdowe was in love with him, by
counterfeyting a letter as from his Lady in generall termes, telling
him what shee liked best in him", as John Manningham wrote in 1602
upon seeing a performance.

The letter was counterfeited by Maria, another of the Lady Olivia's
servants. After the steward Malvolio picks it up off the floor, he
finds the letter to contain amongst others the following lines:

I may command where I adore, but silence like a Lucresse knife:
With bloodlesse stroke my heart doth gore, M.O.A.I. doth sway my life.
— Malvolio, Twelfth Night, or What You Will (2.5)

He grapples with the meaning of M.O.A.I., which Feste the fool calls a
"fustian riddle". First Malvolio sees that M. begins his name, but he
gets confused when he sees that O. should follow and yet does not.
Eventually he resolves only that at least all of the letters are in
his name, whilst the others looking on from hiding snigger at his
behaviour.

The letter M. starts Malvolio's name, and the O. ends it. With the A.
we come back to the second letter at the start of Malvolio, and then
the I. is the second from last. Spelling out the name in full in this
way, skipping to the start and the end and taking off a letter each
time, we get: M.O.A.I.L.L.V.O. To reverse the algorithm, one needs to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane