Variant subtag proposal: Hgnorsk variety of Norwegian
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Thu Dec 31 05:31:37 CET 2009
John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>> Which is exactly why it's a Good Thing to keep the ISO 639-5
>> collection codes around. Sometimes you know only that a given sample
>> is in some Uto-Aztecan language, not which one. It's better to tag
>> it imprecisely as "azc" than incorrectly, or not at all.
>
> On the other hand, if all you know is that the document is in an
> indigenous language of California, you have no clue, because at least
> seven indigenous language families (Hokan, Chumash, Uto-Aztecan,
> Na-Dene, Penutian, Yukian, Algic) are or were spoken there, of which
> Hokan and Penutian may or may not be legitimate groupings, and to make
> things worse, Chumash, Penutian, and Yukian lack 639-5 code elements.
> (To say nothing of the Indo-European, Muskogean, Tarascan, and
> Austronesian languages spoken there.)
Well, if you truly don't know anything, then you don't, and in that case
your choices are "und" (or maybe "und-US") or no tag at all.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list