Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c

[Don Osborn]

The approach to look for a functional description for the subtag is a good idea. Perhaps terms in French that are used to describe the periods in question? If all that fails and the time references really are the only ones that are appropriate, then perhaps 16me-s and 17me-s (or 16ème-s & 17ème-s) would be better indicated.

On the argument that generic century codes might reduce the amount of application and discussion of other specifications for other languages, that is probably marginal at best and wishful thinking beyond that. Some examples have already been brought up. Another one is - what if in a particular context another calendar is the preferred reference? 

Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:35 AM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c
> 
> > If you read my description of the language you will see, as I have
> now
> > noted 3 times, that 17th century French includes elements of 16th
> > century French but has modernized a bit; and has incorporated many
> > words from the Americas such as cannot.
> 
> Is there some functional description that could be given to these
> variants of French, instead of calling them "16th century" and "17th
> century"?  After all, they're not simply "French as spoken in such-and-
> so time frame"; the history and evolution is more interesting than
> that.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> 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