Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 22 23:13:57 CET 2007
>From: Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo-inc.com>
>To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
>CC: ietf-languages at iana.org
>Subject: Re: Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION
>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:02:06 -0800
>Received: from bay0-mc3-f18.bay0.hotmail.com ([188.8.131.52]) by
>bay0-imc2-s30.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon,
>22 Jan 2007 12:10:20 -0800
>Received: from rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com ([184.108.40.206]) by
>bay0-mc3-f18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon,
>22 Jan 2007 12:02:17 -0800
>Received: from [172.21.37.80] (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com
>[172.21.37.80])(authenticated bits=0)by rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com
>(8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l0MK26fZ061725(version=TLSv1/SSLv3
>cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:02:10
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws;
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20061207)
>References: <BAY114-F10827F0A06E361D96EB38AB3AF0 at phx.gbl>
>Return-Path: addison at yahoo-inc.com
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2007 20:02:17.0318 (UTC)
>I think you missed my point. I'm not arguing that there isn't a
>difference. Or that language isn't variable or hasn't evolved etc. I don't
>mean to show disregard for the variations of French. It's just that they
>aren't what concerns me here: I have no doubt such variations are real and
>exist. Very similar kinds of things can be said of (for example) English:
>the English of Shakespeare, for example, is typically "translated" into a
>more modern form, despite being considered to be "modern English" (as
>contrasted with Middle English). It doesn't matter, since I'm not debating
>or disagreeing with the distinction. My point was that it wasn't clear what
>to do looking ONLY at the requested records (as a registry user would do).
>In particular, I note that you don't need the subtags '1606nict' and
>'1694acad' to distinguish late Middle French from early modern French
>documents. 'fr' and 'frm' do that quite nicely.
>If the point of '1694acad' is to distinguish "Early Modern French" from
>more modern "Modern French", that's fine. But the distinction (perhaps
>necessarily) is quite fuzzy: some documents will be closer to Middle
>French and some closer to Modern French (or proto-modern French) and so
>forth. Your registration request seems more focused on differentiating
>these documents from "late middle" documents. Similarly, the point of
>'1606nict' would be to distinguish "Late Middle French" from "regular"
>Middle French. Tagging transitional documents is tricky business already
>(there is an element of--perhaps arbitrary--judgment necessary).
Hi, thanks for your reply. It makes some sense.
Note that French from the time of the Pleiade until some point in the 17th
century (depending on the author) was of almost one kind; and quite distinct
from frm in the 15th century (Villon). Yet I was told we did not want to
blur this distinction and I agree as there are differences still between the
16th and 17th century documents; in the 17th century documents the French
may be less stable at times, with language elements harking back to the 15th
century and evidence of more modern spelling/pronunciation.
The 1694 subtag can apply to all 17th century documents but is meant
specifically to apply above all to those that are outside of the various
Perhaps this needs a comment.
>Identifying language variation is a tricky business below a certain
>level of granularity. For most uses, these subtags will be unnecessary.
I think they will prove useful.
>But certain communities will find some utility in them. The
>problem is creating sufficiently clear descriptions and distinctions to
>allow them to be generally useful in those domains. And, for registration
>purposes, demonstrating that there won't be many other potential subtags
>with different (perhaps arbitrary) distinctions for this same time period
>(that is, register quickly and repent at leisure).
Students of French will certainly appreciate the 17th century subtag I think
as the differences between some of it and modern French might be confusing.
>Finally, I would echo Doug's response, which is that the Description fields
>are extremely long: they are more suitable for Comments. And I would avoid
>placing URIs into your comments/description, since URIs tend to be fungible
>over time (the "Cool URIs" dictum  notwithstanding)
>If I were to request these records, I would tend to make them look more
>like the below. Note the omission of additional notes such as "used in
>Americas", "not completely stable" and so forth: these things go without
>saying or belong in external references. Note also that I removed the
>additional bits from the subtags--I would suggest that these might not be
>necessary and the year-only subtags have at least some history in the
>registry for indicating beginnings/ends of orthographic regimes:
>Description: Early Modern French
>Comments: 17th century French, as catalogued in the "Dictionnaire de
> l'académe françoise", 4eme ed. 1694; frequently includes
> elements of Middle French, as this is a transitional period
>Description: Late Middle French (before 1606?)
>Comments: 16th century French as in Jean Nicot, "Thresor de
> la langue francoyse" 1606;
These requests look great.
>Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
>Internationalization is an architecture.
>It is not a feature.
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
More information about the Ietf-languages