John Cowan | 1 Apr 02:25 2010

Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Nevertheless, for good or for ill, in Ulster they are standardizing
> to a set of different conventions from those used in mainstream Scots
> writing.

Which is why it must be clear that this tag marks an orthography, not a
dialect (albeit an orthography used for just one dialect).  Using anything
based solely on the name "Ulster" would not meet that criterion.

> > The important thing to focus on is the unique Robinson orthography,
> > which is applied to Ulster Scots only (though it would serve Central
> > Scots about as well).
> 
> Robinson wrote it up but was not a one-man orthography guru. 

If he did it as representative of an institution, then it would be
well to use the name of that institution as the source of the tag.

> I don't know Mr Dooley to evaluate this claim.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22537/22537-h/22537-h.htm#MR_DOOLEY_IN_WAR

My father was born in the Irish ghetto of South Philadelphia in 1904
(it's still a ghetto, but not Irish), and could talk exactly like this
(okay, Mayo not Roscommon, but that's a detail) when he chose to.
He told me that he hardly met an "American" until he left high school.

> I can say that Scots proper is very much separate from mainstream
> English in a number of significant ways.
(Continue reading)

CE Whitehead | 1 Apr 17:23 2010
Picon

Reminder: Ulster Scots


 
 
Hi.
Phillips, Addison addison at amazon.com
Wed Mar 31 16:55:57 CEST 2010
Previous message: Reminder: Ulster Scots
> I'm not a big fan, personally, of dated subtags. They are non-mnemonic, unattractive, and could be misleading (things published in 1603 might use the 1606 orthography). It is just as possible that a new wordlist gets published (next year or ninety years from now) and it still be considered the same orthography (new words are created all the time) and thus still "2006ulst" even though there exists, say, a 2010 revision thereof.
> If a date is reasonable and meaningful for a given orthography, I'm all for it. But this case doesn't *necessarily* fit.
Maybe ulster ?
or ulster (or lallans  though I think lallans is now dated)-robinson ?  That is, to register a variant for the dialect and then one for the orthography?
Or ulster-2006 ? that is o.k. too.
Either would allow the registration of historical forms though this seems counter to Doug's proposal -- which I support I think.
But this way it is possible to deprecate the second subtag -- the one for the orthography?
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
C. E. Whitehead

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
 

 
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Doug Ewell | 1 Apr 20:20 2010

Paperwork for new ISO 639 changes

ISO 639-3 has matched the ISO 639-2 action of adding an alternative name
for Hmong, and added one more change and one addition.  Below are
records and registration forms, which can be submitted April 16 if all
is well.

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2010-04-16
%%
Type: language
Subtag: hmn
Description: Hmong
Description: Mong
Added: 2005-10-16
Scope: macrolanguage
%%

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

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

   Type: language
   Subtag: hmn
   Description: Hmong
   Description: Mong
   Scope: macrolanguage

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

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

6. Any other relevant information:

   This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-2 effective
   2010-03-29 and to ISO 639-3 effective 2010-03-30, adding the
   additional name "Mong" for the existing code element 'hmn'.  The
   existing Scope attribute in the Registry is not affected by this
   change.

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2010-04-16
%%
Type: language
Subtag: hnj
Description: Hmong Njua
Description: Mong Leng
Description: Mong Njua
Added: 2009-07-29
Macrolanguage: hmn
%%

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

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

   Type: language
   Subtag: hnj
   Description: Hmong Njua
   Description: Mong Leng
   Description: Mong Njua
   Macrolanguage: hmn

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

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

6. Any other relevant information:

   This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective
   2010-03-30, adding the additional names "Mong Leng" and "Mong Njua"
   for the existing code element 'hnj'.  The existing Macrolanguage
   attribute in the Registry is not affected by this change.

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2010-04-16
%%
Type: language
Subtag: nkq
Description: Nkami
Added: 2010-04-16
%%

---

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

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

   Type: language
   Subtag: nkq
   Description: Nkami

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

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

6. Any other relevant information:

   This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective
   2010-03-30, adding the code element 'nkq' for Nkami.

--
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
Michael Everson | 1 Apr 20:26 2010

Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

Mark's and Doug's arguments seemed best to me. Both sides had merit. "ulster" it is.

Robinson is out since it is Fenton 2006 and Robinson 2007 anyway both using the same orthography.

Accordingly as the two weeks is up and no change is made to the proposal, I declare it approved as per Doug's
minor revision of 17 March.

Michael Everson

On 31 Mar 2010, at 19:29, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:

> I agree. In accordance with the general principles of BCP47, we should have an "ulster" code. That lets
people tag data appropriately, just as you can tag data as "de" (German) even though there are multiple
possible orthographies or dialects.
> 
> If, in addition, there are multiple orthographies that need to be distinguished, those should be
subtags, eg ulster-rob2006.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14, Doug Ewell <doug <at> ewellic.org> wrote:
> > Hands up, everyone, ulster or 2006ulst and why.
> 
> I vote for 'ulster'.  It is functionally equivalent to '2006ulst' and
> much, much less cryptic.  We can always register 'ulster15' if an
> incompatibly different standard does emerge five years from now.
> 
> We also need to decide whether the intended scope is
> dialect-plus-orthography or just orthography.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages  <at>  http://is.gd/2kf0s 
=
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Michael Everson | 1 Apr 21:09 2010

Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

On 1 Apr 2010, at 19:58, Kent Karlsson wrote:

> My understanding was that Mark was arguing for "ulster" as a dialect
> variant code, irrespective of orthography.

Well, fine. The sources in the request happen to use that orthography. As I do not need to distinguish it from
some other Ulster Scots orthography, no further subtag is required.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Kent Karlsson | 1 Apr 20:58 2010
Picon

Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

My understanding was that Mark was arguing for "ulster" as a dialect
variant code, irrespective of orthography.

    /kent k

Den 2010-04-01 20.26, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson <at> evertype.com>:

> Mark's and Doug's arguments seemed best to me. Both sides had merit. "ulster"
> it is.

Robinson is out since it is Fenton 2006 and Robinson 2007 anyway both
> using the same orthography.

Accordingly as the two weeks is up and no change
> is made to the proposal, I declare it approved as per Doug's minor revision of
> 17 March.

Michael Everson

On 31 Mar 2010, at 19:29, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:

> I
> agree. In accordance with the general principles of BCP47, we should have an
> "ulster" code. That lets people tag data appropriately, just as you can tag
> data as "de" (German) even though there are multiple possible orthographies or
> dialects.
> 
> If, in addition, there are multiple orthographies that need to
> be distinguished, those should be subtags, eg ulster-rob2006.
> 
> Mark
> 
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14, Doug Ewell <doug <at> ewellic.org> wrote:
> > Hands
> up, everyone, ulster or 2006ulst and why.
> 
> I vote for 'ulster'.  It is
> functionally equivalent to '2006ulst' and
> much, much less cryptic.  We can
> always register 'ulster15' if an
> incompatibly different standard does emerge
> five years from now.
> 
> We also need to decide whether the intended scope
> is
> dialect-plus-orthography or just orthography.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  |
> Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> |  ietf-languages  <at>  http://is.gd/2kf0s 
=
Michael Everson *
> http://www.evertype.com/

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Kent Karlsson | 1 Apr 21:52 2010
Picon

Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

But then the registration request should be amended to refer to the
Ulster dialect, rather than a specific orthography.

    /kent k

Den 2010-04-01 21.09, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson <at> evertype.com>:

> On 1 Apr 2010, at 19:58, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> 
>> My understanding was that Mark was arguing for "ulster" as a dialect
>> variant code, irrespective of orthography.
> 
> Well, fine. The sources in the request happen to use that orthography. As I do
> not need to distinguish it from some other Ulster Scots orthography, no
> further subtag is required.
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Peter Constable | 2 Apr 03:39 2010
Picon

RE: Reminder: Ulster Scots

From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On
Behalf Of Michael Everson

>> The key issue is that we know that the 1606 and 1694 have a pretty high level of stability; it's rather less
clear what the stability of something published just recently will be.

>Sorry, Peter; you are still crystal-ball gazing. We cannot predict whether the present orthography will
be stable for decades or generations, or whether it will be modified next year.

>I think the latter is unlikely.

No, I'm saying we can't prophesy. It seems to me that, in your last statement, you are crystal-ball gazing.

Peter
Peter Constable | 2 Apr 03:45 2010
Picon

RE: Reminder: Ulster Scots

Is anyone going to write Ulster Scots in any other orthography?

Assuming yes to the previous question, is anyone going to want to request Ulster Scots content, regardless
of which orthography is used?

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On
Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Reminder: Ulster Scots

2006ulst is going to mean Ulster Scots written in that particular orthography as defined in that
particular book. I doubt that anyone is going to write any other language or dialect in that orthography.

I am most comfortable with 2006ulst than with ulster at this point.

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Peter Constable | 2 Apr 04:17 2010
Picon

RE: Reminder: Ulster Scots

From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On
Behalf Of Michael Everson

>Nevertheless, for good or for ill, in Ulster they are standardizing to a set of different conventions from
those used in mainstream Scots writing. 

Just orthographic conventions? Or in practice are there also correlate lexical differences?

Peter

Gmane