fon* variants
CE Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 14 20:55:06 CET 2006
Hi, Frank:
">With "1694" or similar it's clearer, it will be bound to some
>languages including "fr" (not necessarily the same definition
>for all prefixes). And as long as Old English and Esperanto
>aren't listed as prefixes for "1694" such combinations can be
>sorted out as nonsense by a tool."
For me 1694 is too precise; I want to include a slightly wider period
including some of its variety but not so wide as simply fr or frm.
The neat thing about sorting out combinations like en-16esiecl or en-16emes
(or en-1694 but I prefer not to use 1694 here)
is that documents coded as such could still be classified as en, English by
any tool!
I myself was disappointed to discover that moyen francais was frm and not
something more appropriate like fr-moyen
because then it could be classified as French as it is really French, very
accessible to modern French speakers.
Alas, had English speakers encountered Middle Scots (that is, Scots dialect
of English) instead of Chaucer's Middle English in readings of English from
that period they (we; I am one) would have seen how similar European
languages from the 14th century on are to the modern version.
Thanks.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list