NEW-MODIFY LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION for "GB"

Debbie Garside md at ictmarketing.co.uk
Fri Apr 21 19:24:48 CEST 2006


 Kent wrote:

> sv-SE (official) and sv-AX are so close that I cannot tell 
> the difference.
> There's not even a difference in pronunciation. Dialects of sv-SE vary
> *MUCH* more. sv-FI (not -AX) is sometimes considered "purer" 
> (and has a very particular dialectal pronunciation), but only 
> in the sense that it is more old-fashioned. Just like 
> Icelandic is sometimes considered a "purer" form of 
> Nordic/Scandinavian languages, but only for its (very much 
> more) old-fashioned nature.

Thanks for clarifying

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of 
> Kent Karlsson
> Sent: 21 April 2006 10:09
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: RE: NEW-MODIFY LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION for "GB"
> 
> 
> Debbie Garside wrote:
> > With regard to sv-SE and sv-AX, it was my understanding (through 
> > conversations with colleagues in Stockholm) that it is generally 
> > considered that sv-AX is a "purer" form of Swedish and this could 
> > perhaps indicate
> some
> > difference between them but perhaps that is spoken rather than 
> > written;
> I am
> > sure you know better than I.
> 
> sv-SE (official) and sv-AX are so close that I cannot tell 
> the difference.
> There's not even a difference in pronunciation. Dialects of sv-SE vary
> *MUCH* more. sv-FI (not -AX) is sometimes considered "purer" 
> (and has a very particular dialectal pronunciation), but only 
> in the sense that it is more old-fashioned. Just like 
> Icelandic is sometimes considered a "purer" form of 
> Nordic/Scandinavian languages, but only for its (very much 
> more) old-fashioned nature.
> 
> 
> John Cowan wrote:
> > Fortunately, the AX-FI split happened before our official event 
> > horizon (Date B), and there was never anything, AFAIK, 
> saying that FI 
> > included AX.
> 
> The split happened long after RFC 3066 became official.
> (Not sure what "date B" is, and you don't give an actual date.)
> 
> 
> Doug Ewell wrote:
> > > I was kind of hoping this suggestion would just go away...
> >
> > I hope that no serious suggestion on this list will ever 
> "just go away."
> > Every suggestion that is made in good faith and with an eye toward 
> > improving the usability of language tags should always be 
> considered 
> > and discussed publicly.  We owe it not only to the 
> proponent, but also 
> > to the users who may be affected.
> 
> I had just hoped that I would not have to argue much about it 
> myself...
> 
> 		/kent k
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages




More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list