headers
John Cowan | 1 Jan 02:46

Re: Indonesian and extlang...

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> In the (many times repeated) production of the RFC 5645 Registry,
> only newly created language subtags were considered as candidates
> for extlangs.  Existing language subtags were not examined as part of
> this process.

Almost.  Minangkabau is part of 639-2, and was added in 2005, but it
has an extlang tag.  However, the case against ms-ind for me is that
Indonesian shouldn't be 'id' in one context and 'ind' in another.

--

-- 
Don't be so humble.  You're not that great.             John Cowan
        --Golda Meir                                    cowan <at> ccil.org
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Doug Ewell | 1 Jan 04:09
Favicon

Re: Indonesian and extlang...

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> In the (many times repeated) production of the RFC 5645 Registry, 
>> only newly created language subtags were considered as candidates for 
>> extlangs.  Existing language subtags were not examined as part of 
>> this process.
>
> Almost.  Minangkabau is part of 639-2, and was added in 2005, but it 
> has an extlang tag.

Hmm.  That would be a mistake on my part in putting together 5645.  I'll 
have to figure out what went wrong.  Possibly I skipped over it because 
of the infamous "zh-min" problem.

Besides the working instructions in 5645, that would violate point 
12.C.4 in 5646 ("'Extlang' records MUST NOT be created for items already 
in the registry").  I suspect it's too late to take it back now, because 
the expanded Registry has been out for five months now and someone could 
have tagged content as "ms-min".

> However, the case against ms-ind for me is that Indonesian shouldn't 
> be 'id' in one context and 'ind' in another.

No argument there.  And we do have point 12.A to back that up.

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

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 1 Jan 05:43
Favicon

Re: Indonesian and extlang...

I wrote:

>> Almost.  Minangkabau is part of 639-2, and was added in 2005, but it 
>> has an extlang tag.
>
> Hmm.  That would be a mistake on my part in putting together 5645. 
> I'll have to figure out what went wrong.  Possibly I skipped over it 
> because of the infamous "zh-min" problem.

Nope, it wasn't that.  Although my program that merged ISO 639-3 code 
elements into the Registry did skip over the two-letter subtags, like 
'id', it missed the rule about not creating extlangs out of existing 
language subtags.

This error was exposed beginning in draft-4645bis-09, after ISO 639-3 
added 21 more languages (including Indonesian and Minangkabau) to the 
three already encompassed under the macrolanguage 'msa'.

It's a bug.  Sorry, folks.  We'll see if IESG takes this into account 
when reviewing my status in May.  (Michael and I know there are people 
who would like to see different reviewers.)

--
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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kent Karlsson | 1 Jan 12:22
Picon

Re: Indonesian and extlang...


Den 2010-01-01 05.43, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug <at> ewellic.org>:

> Nope, it wasn't that.  Although my program that merged ISO 639-3 code
> 
elements into the Registry did skip over the two-letter subtags, like 
'id',
> it missed the rule about not creating extlangs out of existing 
language
> subtags.

This error was exposed beginning in draft-4645bis-09, after ISO
> 639-3 
added 21 more languages (including Indonesian and Minangkabau) to the
> 
three already encompassed under the macrolanguage 'msa'.

I would have regarded not including it as a bug, in addition
to the id/ind one.

You may record my general disagreement with adding extlangs for
any primary language subtag that does not have extlangs already
(say for Lithuanian). The extlangs was only a vehicle for a
compromise; but that has long past. Lots of primary language
tags that are/were macrolanguages were excluded from being
extlang bases. In the long run (this is not a request for
considering this now) I think all the "extlang" records
should be formally deprecated; they are semi-deprecated now
by having preferred-values.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Leif Halvard Silli | 1 Jan 18:12
Picon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Thorgeir Holm thorgeirholm at yahoo.no wrote:
> Sat Dec 26 22:44:40 CET 2009
> 
> 	•	Previous message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of 
> Norwegian
> 	•	Next message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian
> 	•	Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> <hermer Doug Ewell frå 26.12.2009 17:03>
> 
>> I would just like to confirm that 'nn' is the only desired Prefix for 
>> this subtag.
> 
> I'm not quite sure about that one. Maybe someone would claim that 
> 'hognorsk' is so unlike ordinary 'nn' that it would be better to use it 
> with the macrolanguage subtag 'no' (although 'hognorsk' must no doubt 
> belong to 'nn' and not 'nb' if these two split all variation of 'no' 
> between themselves).

Thorgeir informed my about this request today.

As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and 
'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how 
anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for 
Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a 
subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its 
prefix. 

'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we 
limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 'no' as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 57 comments |
headers
Leif Halvard Silli | 1 Jan 18:25
Picon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Leif Halvard Silli, Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:12:16 +0100:
> Thorgeir Holm thorgeirholm at yahoo.no wrote:
>> Sat Dec 26 22:44:40 CET 2009
>> 
>> 	•	Previous message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of 
>> Norwegian
>> 	•	Next message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian
>> 	•	Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>> 
>> <hermer Doug Ewell frå 26.12.2009 17:03>
>> 
>>> I would just like to confirm that 'nn' is the only desired Prefix for 
>>> this subtag.
>> 
>> I'm not quite sure about that one. Maybe someone would claim that 
>> 'hognorsk' is so unlike ordinary 'nn' that it would be better to use it 
>> with the macrolanguage subtag 'no' (although 'hognorsk' must no doubt 
>> belong to 'nn' and not 'nb' if these two split all variation of 'no' 
>> between themselves).
> 
> Thorgeir informed my about this request today.
> 
> As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and 
> 'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how 
> anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for 
> Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a 
> subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its 
> prefix. 
> 
> 'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Kent Karlsson | 1 Jan 18:57
Picon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian


Den 2010-01-01 18.12, skrev "Leif Halvard Silli"
<xn--mlform-iua <at> xn--mlform-iua.no>:

> As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and
> 'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how
> anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for
> Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a
> subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its
> prefix. 
> 
> 'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we
> limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 'no' as
> a synonym of 'nb' and vice versa.

Not at all.

> Such an idea is opposed to the
> aspiration of Nynorsk to be the Norwegian language. And this aspiration
> is not less strong in the Høgnorsk variant of Nynorsk than in the
> official variant of Nynorsk, on the contrary.

If Nynorsk becomes the only official language of Norway (in some future)
then documents in then-official Norwegian should be language tagged as "nn".
IIRC there has been a long-standing

> Høgnorsk is just as much
> a subclass of Norwegian as of Nynorsk.

And Norwegian is a subclass of Germanic languages which is a subclass
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 27 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 1 Jan 20:18
Favicon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Leif Halvard Silli <målform at målform dot no> wrote:

> If we limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 
> 'no' as a synonym of 'nb' and vice versa. Such an idea is opposed to 
> the aspiration of Nynorsk to be the Norwegian language. And this 
> aspiration is not less strong in the Høgnorsk variant of Nynorsk than 
> in the official variant of Nynorsk, on the contrary.

I was doing just fine with your line of reasoning, until you brought in 
the activist component.  Language subtags are not assigned to promote 
political or linguistic reform or other social causes, though we are 
aware that some people may request subtags on those grounds.

> Further more: When 'hogorsk' becomes a tag, then it would not surprise 
> me if the conservative Bokmål adherants - the socalled Riksmål group - 
> would be interested in registering - let's say 'riksmal' as a variant 
> tag. And I have little doubt in my mind that they would like to see 
> both 'no' and 'nb' as desired prefixes.

We will not assign any subtags unless they represent legitimate language 
variations.  That is how the proposal for 'hognorsk' is being evaluated. 
If a proposal for 'riksmal' comes along, that is how it will be 
evaluated.

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 25 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 1 Jan 20:29
Picon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety ofNorwegian

Hi -

> From: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua <at> xn--mlform-iua.no>
> To: <ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no>
> Cc: "Doug Ewell" <doug <at> ewellic.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety ofNorwegian
...
> Further more: When 'hogorsk' becomes a tag, then it would not surprise
> me if the conservative Bokmål adherants - the socalled Riksmål group -
> would be interested in registering - let's say 'riksmal' as a variant
> tag. And I have little doubt in my mind that they would like to see
> both 'no' and 'nb' as desired prefixes.

To me this is a strong argument for *not* specifying 'no' as a prefix
for either 'hogorsk' or the hypothetical 'riksmal'.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Leif Halvard Silli | 1 Jan 20:35
Picon

Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Kent Karlsson, Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:57:37 +0100:
> Den 2010-01-01 18.12, skrev "Leif Halvard Silli":
> 
>> As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and
>> 'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how
>> anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for
>> Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a
>> subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its
>> prefix. 
>> 
>> 'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we
>> limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 'no' as
>> a synonym of 'nb' and vice versa.
> 
> Not at all.

By allowing 'hognorsk' after 'no', we emphasize that 'no' is a 
macrolanguage subtag suitable for any form of Norwegian. 
 
>> Such an idea is opposed to the
>> aspiration of Nynorsk to be the Norwegian language. And this aspiration
>> is not less strong in the Høgnorsk variant of Nynorsk than in the
>> official variant of Nynorsk, on the contrary.
> 
> If Nynorsk becomes the only official language of Norway (in some future)
> then documents in then-official Norwegian should be language tagged as "nn".

I don't understand why you say so.

'Nynorsk' is a label that means 'New Norwegian', and although it has
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |

Gmane