A stake in the ground

[Doug Ewell]

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> It is not clear to me that there is a "macrolanguage" that encompasses 
> Latvian and anything else.
>
> This should be decided by LINGUISTICS -- not by possibly erroneous 
> taggings by the LoC or anyone else.

For the record, on this list I am assuming ISO 639-3/RA will approve the 
requested actions (create two new code elements and convert 'lav' to a 
macrolanguage).  I am only discussing whether we should make extlangs 
out of the new encompassed languages, and what the best choice of subtag 
will be for a given tagging scenario, GIVEN that the RA has approved all 
of these actions.  Obviously, if they don't, we have different choices 
(or none) to make.

We can discuss whether the RA should make these decisions or not, and 
convey our thoughts to the RA -- and I believe I started this mess by 
calling attention to the proposals for Latvian and Lithuanian, which I 
thought might be controversial, and questioning whether their extremely 
similar wording was really the work of two different individuals as 
claimed -- but these are ultimately the RA's decisions, and they are not 
bound by our list discussions.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­