CE Whitehead | 2 Oct 01:21
Picon

Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)




Hi!
Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Wed Sep 30 14:46:09 CEST 2009

> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>> I believe the reason there is no date listed for "Early Modern French"
>> is that it persisted a bit later in the 'New World' than in the 'Old.'
>> (In the old it did not  persist much past 1660; in the new it
>> persisted in some degree until near the end of the 17th century!)   I
>> feel I should now insert "ending late 17th century" or something into
>> the description field??  Wouldn't that be a better solution?

> My point, at least, was not that we need a "solution" to revise existing
> tags to add more detail, but that sometimes the existing descriptions
> are adequate.

> In particular, "early modern" versions of modern languages are going to
> be somewhat fuzzy (to use Randy's term).  Almost by definition, they
> morphed into the modern form at different times, depending on who the
> speakers and writers were.  There will be a lot of text samples which
> will be difficult to pin down as either "fr" or "fr-1694acad", and I'm
> not sure how trying to assign an ending date to the subtag solves that
> problem.
Actually, having a date will help to precise the variety, but thank you for your correction; in Canada and France, although accents are normalized by the end of the saweventeenth century 'oi' for 'ai' persists throughout the 18th century; and, at least in Canada/Louisiana/New France, I believe that 'oy' for 'oi' persists as well as 'parolle' for 'parole'--'speech' (this latter is strictly orthographic I think).

The variety of "Early Modern French" that I described ( 'oi' for 'ai'; the past participle ending with e and the accent aigu being spelled without any accent as ez, er, or e, depending; 'loing' for 'loin'--'far;' 'coste' for 'cote'--'side'; finally, before a 't', e with accent aigu may be spelled 'es' as may e with a circumflex!) however seems to end largely around or just before 1700.  Interestingly, the final pages of de la Salle's journal written in the New World at the end of the 17th century show a gradual ceasing of writing the past participle ending in e with accent aigu as ez, er, or e without an accent (not sure why as these pages were written when the French were only in contact with the locals of the Gulf of Mexico;  however Nicholas de la Salle and de la Salle le jeune took the whole journal with them to France to be published--perhaps some of the French was corrected there, or perhaps another member of the expedition began commenting on de la Salle le jeune's French at this point!)

I might then consider a description field, "largely ending in the late 17th century although some features persisted into the eighteenth century."

I suppose this is too long.

I checked what I could find at:
http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/France:_1454_-_1788  (an index of texts; the ones I could access were Jesuit).

The following late 17th century and early 18th century documents still use 'oi' for 'ai:'

http://www.canadiana.org/view/32625/0003 (Canada; "Relation de ce qui s'est passé de plus remarquable dans la mission abnaquise de Sainct Joseph de Sillery et de Sainct François de Sales, l'année 1685");

http://www.canadiana.org/view/20049/10 (1700, Canada; Montigny, François Jolliet de.; Buisson, Jean-François de St. Cosme, 1667-1707.
"Relation de la mission du Mississipi [sic] du Séminaire de Québec en 1700."
)
http://www.canadiana.org/view/32626/8 (1701, Canada; Bigot, Vincent, 1649-1720.
"Relation de ce qui s'est passé de plus remarquable dans la mission des Abnaquis à L'Acadie, l'année 1701");

http://www.canadiana.org/view/32742/9 (1702 Canada; Bigot again).

A quick check at atilf suggests that 'oi' continued to be used for 'ai' until the end of the eighteenth century actually:

francoyse (Jean Nicot, 1606; see http://portail.atilf.fr/dictionnaires/TLF-NICOT/index.htm)
francoise (Academie 1694; see http://portail.atilf.fr/dictionnaires/ACADEMIE/images/1694.title.jpeg
francoise (Academie 1798; see http://portail.atilf.fr/dictionnaires/ACADEMIE/images/1798.title.jpeg)

academie francaise (Academie 1835; see http://portail.atilf.fr/dictionnaires/ACADEMIE/images/sixieme.title.lg.jpg)

However 'coste' is listed in only the first two; and 'loing' is listed only in Nicot!  (See: http://portail.atilf.fr/dictionnaires/onelook.htm to check on more words!)

Best,



C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages <at> http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

 


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Doug Ewell | 2 Oct 14:48
Favicon

Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Actually, having a date will help to precise the variety, but thank 
> you for your correction; in Canada and France, although accents are 
> normalized by the end of the saweventeenth century 'oi' for 'ai' 
> persists throughout the 18th century; and, at least in 
> Canada/Louisiana/New France, I believe that 'oy' for 'oi' persists as 
> well as 'parolle' for 'parole'--'speech' (this latter is strictly 
> orthographic I think).
>
> The variety of "Early Modern French" that I described ( 'oi' for 'ai'; 
> the past participle ending with e and the accent aigu being spelled 
> without any accent as ez, er, or e, depending; 'loing' for 
> 'loin'--'far;' 'coste' for 'cote'--'side'; finally, before a 't', e 
> with accent aigu may be spelled 'es' as may e with a circumflex!) 
> however seems to end largely around or just before 1700.
> ...
> A quick check at atilf suggests that 'oi' continued to be used for 
> 'ai' until the end of the eighteenth century actually:

This research is actually helpful to prove my point, that the various 
attributes ascribed to "Early Modern French" died out at considerably 
different times depending on the source, and that this language variety 
is better defined by these attributes than by trying to specify strict 
starting and ending dates.  I recommend no change.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
CE Whitehead | 2 Oct 21:50
Picon

RE: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)


Hi!
 
> From: doug <at> ewellic.org
> To: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
> CC: cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:48:53 -0600
>
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, having a date will help to precise the variety, but thank
> > you for your correction; in Canada and France, although accents are
> > normalized by the end of the saweventeenth century 'oi' for 'ai'
> > persists throughout the 18th century; and, at least in
> > Canada/Louisiana/New France, I believe that 'oy' for 'oi' persists as
> > well as 'parolle' for 'parole'--'speech' (this latter is strictly
> > orthographic I think).
> >
> > The variety of "Early Modern French" that I described ( 'oi' for 'ai';
> > the past participle ending with e and the accent aigu being spelled
> > without any accent as ez, er, or e, depending; 'loing' for
> > 'loin'--'far;' 'coste' for 'cote'--'side'; finally, before a 't', e
> > with accent aigu may be spelled 'es' as may e with a circumflex!)
> > however seems to end largely around or just before 1700.
> > ...
> > A quick check at atilf suggests that 'oi' continued to be used for
> > 'ai' until the end of the eighteenth century actually:
>
> This research is actually helpful to prove my point, that the various
> attributes ascribed to "Early Modern French" died out at considerably
> different times depending on the source, and that this language variety
> is better defined by these attributes than by trying to specify strict
> starting and ending dates. I recommend no change.
 
Hmm, I would like a more precise description.  "Early Modern French; its features include alternate forms for the past participle, 'oi' for 'ai,' and 'oste' for 'o[with circumflex]te.'"
 
However I am sure that this description field is a bit long, so we can postpone this for now--and worry about the other subtags we are considering.
 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages <at> http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Mark Davis ☕ | 2 Oct 22:17

Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

None of the descriptions are that precise, nor is there particular advantage in trying to add precise descriptions. BCP 47, for example, doesn't describe the precise differences between en-US and en-GB, or between pt-BR and pt-PT.

Mark


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:50, CE Whitehead <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi!
 
> From: doug <at> ewellic.org
> To: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
> CC: cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:48:53 -0600

>
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, having a date will help to precise the variety, but thank
> > you for your correction; in Canada and France, although accents are
> > normalized by the end of the saweventeenth century 'oi' for 'ai'
> > persists throughout the 18th century; and, at least in
> > Canada/Louisiana/New France, I believe that 'oy' for 'oi' persists as
> > well as 'parolle' for 'parole'--'speech' (this latter is strictly
> > orthographic I think).
> >
> > The variety of "Early Modern French" that I described ( 'oi' for 'ai';
> > the past participle ending with e and the accent aigu being spelled
> > without any accent as ez, er, or e, depending; 'loing' for
> > 'loin'--'far;' 'coste' for 'cote'--'side'; finally, before a 't', e
> > with accent aigu may be spelled 'es' as may e with a circumflex!)
> > however seems to end largely around or just before 1700.
> > ...
> > A quick check at atilf suggests that 'oi' continued to be used for
> > 'ai' until the end of the eighteenth century actually:
>
> This research is actually helpful to prove my point, that the various
> attributes ascribed to "Early Modern French" died out at considerably
> different times depending on the source, and that this language variety
> is better defined by these attributes than by trying to specify strict
> starting and ending dates. I recommend no change.
 
Hmm, I would like a more precise description.  "Early Modern French; its features include alternate forms for the past participle, 'oi' for 'ai,' and 'oste' for 'o[with circumflex]te.'"
 
However I am sure that this description field is a bit long, so we can postpone this for now--and worry about the other subtags we are considering.

 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages <at> http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Michael Everson | 2 Oct 22:28
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:17, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:

> None of the descriptions are that precise, nor is there particular  
> advantage in trying to add precise descriptions. BCP 47, for  
> example, doesn't describe the precise differences between en-US and  
> en-GB, or between pt-BR and pt-PT.

I agree with Mark.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Phillips, Addison | 2 Oct 22:34
Picon
Favicon

RE: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

I agree with Mark and Michael and especially Doug. The description of 1694acad is sufficiently precise for
it to be used. Users can refer to additional materials as needed (such as the registration form's
references) if they are still unsure of whether the subtag is appropriate for their application. 

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 1:28 PM
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was:
> Flavors of Hepburn)
> 
> On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:17, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> 
> > None of the descriptions are that precise, nor is there
> particular
> > advantage in trying to add precise descriptions. BCP 47, for
> > example, doesn't describe the precise differences between en-US
> and
> > en-GB, or between pt-BR and pt-PT.
> 
> I agree with Mark.
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
CE Whitehead | 5 Oct 21:41
Picon

RE: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)



Hi!  Mark, Michael, Doug, and Addison-- 
 
Actually the description field, "Early Modern French," is way too vague (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_France
for a description of what "early modern France"--and I presume as well, "early modern French"--encompasses; however I checked--the 'comments' come up with Richard Ishida's search utility!
 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com

 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:17:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)
From: mark <at> macchiato.com
To: cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
CC: doug <at> ewellic.org; ietf-languages <at> iana.org

None of the descriptions are that precise, nor is there particular advantage in trying to add precise descriptions. BCP 47, for example, doesn't describe the precise differences between en-US and en-GB, or between pt-BR and pt-PT.

Mark


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:50, CE Whitehead <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi!
 
> From: doug <at> ewellic.org
> To: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
> CC: cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:48:53 -0600

>
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, having a date will help to precise the variety, but thank
> > you for your correction; in Canada and France, although accents are
> > normalized by the end of the saweventeenth century 'oi' for 'ai'
> > persists throughout the 18th century; and, at least in
> > Canada/Louisiana/New France, I believe that 'oy' for 'oi' persists as
> > well as 'parolle' for 'parole'--'speech' (this latter is strictly
> > orthographic I think).
> >
> > The variety of "Early Modern French" that I described ( 'oi' for 'ai';
> > the past participle ending with e and the accent aigu being spelled
> > without any accent as ez, er, or e, depending; 'loing' for
> > 'loin'--'far;' 'coste' for 'cote'--'side'; finally, before a 't', e
> > with accent aigu may be spelled 'es' as may e with a circumflex!)
> > however seems to end largely around or just before 1700.
> > ...
> > A quick check at atilf suggests that 'oi' continued to be used for
> > 'ai' until the end of the eighteenth century actually:
>
> This research is actually helpful to prove my point, that the various
> attributes ascribed to "Early Modern French" died out at considerably
> different times depending on the source, and that this language variety
> is better defined by these attributes than by trying to specify strict
> starting and ending dates. I recommend no change.
 
Hmm, I would like a more precise description.  "Early Modern French; its features include alternate forms for the past participle, 'oi' for 'ai,' and 'oste' for 'o[with circumflex]te.'"
 
However I am sure that this description field is a bit long, so we can postpone this for now--and worry about the other subtags we are considering.

 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages <at> http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Michael Everson | 5 Oct 22:54
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

I am satisfied that nothing is broken.
]
On 5 Oct 2009, at 20:41, CE Whitehead wrote:

> Hi!  Mark, Michael, Doug, and Addison--
>
> Actually the description field, "Early Modern French," is way too  
> vague (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_France
> for a description of what "early modern France"--and I presume as  
> well, "early modern French"--encompasses; however I checked--the  
> 'comments' come up with Richard Ishida's search utility!
>
> Best,
>
> C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar <at> hotmail.com

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
CE Whitehead | 6 Oct 02:49
Picon

Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests and was: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 81, Issue 41)



 

Hi

Mark Crispin mrc+ietf at Panda.COM
Sun Sep 27 21:45:34 CEST 2009

 

> Yes. I contend that "any romanization of Japanese that fits the Hepburn model better than

>it fits other models" is a good definition, is reasonably concise, and ought to be used in

>the registration.

 This definition sounds fine, but Doug said not for the description field--in the comments maybe?? 

 

 

 

>>From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org

>> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:16 AM

>>  I would be surprised if anyone familiar with romanizations of Japanese,

>> or any other Asian language, would expect a variant subtag referring to

>> a particular romanization to apply only if the rules are followed

>> precisely. That would be like saying that "en-US" can apply only to

>> "proper" American English as described in an authoritative,

>> prescriptivist dictionary and not to any regional varieties, nor to

>> non-standard grammar or spelling (such as "alright" :).

>> This is one reason I didn't want "ISO 3602" or similar to appear in the

>> Description field. Anyone familiar with these romanizations should be

>> able to tell what is intended by "Hepburn romanization" or "Kunrei-shiki

 >> romanization," and should not be thrown off by additional specificity

>> that might imply o . . .

 

I don't think it's completely clear that [kunrei] should not be registered as it is  well enough defined--I agree with Randy that we don't need to build a perfect tree here --that would be impossible; if we saw at a later date that the [kunrei] subtag should have as its prefix some other subtag in addition  [ja-Latn] we would need to deprecate [kunrei] though which would be a shame as it's a convenient name so I'm willing to wait to register [kunrei]-- but I'm also willing to wager that the prefix [ja-Latn] is what [kunrei] will ultimately get!

 

--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar <at> hotmail.com

>> I think it is clear by now that only 'hepburn' and 'heploc' should be

>> registered at this time, because some participants (not all) feel we

>> should only register subtags for which there is a clear and present

>> user-expressed need, and because Mark has expressed this concern over

>> the continuum of romanizations. We can always return to Kunrei-shiki

>> and Nihon-shiki in the future, maybe the very near future, but debating

>> them should not further delay registration of Frank's Hepburn subtags.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Doug Ewell | 6 Oct 05:09
Favicon

Re: Language subtag modification form for 1694acad (Was: Flavors of Hepburn)

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Actually the description field, "Early Modern French," is way too 
> vague (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_France
> for a description of what "early modern France"--and I presume as 
> well, "early modern French"--encompasses;

I wouldn't think the concept of "early modern" French, the language, 
necessarily has anything to do with the concept of "early modern" 
France, the country.

> however I checked--the 'comments' come up with Richard Ishida's search 
> utility!

It depends on the application.  Mine displays comments when you click 
Validate.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Gmane