Reminder: Ulster Scots

[CE Whitehead]

Hi!

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Tue Apr 6 15:28:59 CEST 2010 


Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> I don't see anything incorrect about Randy's questions. Michael's 
>> response was that "There is only one orthography under consideration." 
>> But that's a fallacious response: he asked for a tag to identify an 
>> orthography, and if there is only one orthography, then there is 
>> nothing to differentiate, and no need for a tag. Thus, since Michael 
>> _did_ ask for a tag differentiating an orthography, it was entirely 
>> reasonable of Randy to assume it stood in contrast with some other 
>> orthographic conventions. And Randy went on to ask very reasonable and 
>> useful questions.

> Randy had written, "I think the existence of two distinct orthographies 
> (Hamely Tongue and the one under consideration) for a distinct variety 
> of the language..."  This was the fallacy; the Hamely Tongue orthography 
> *was* the one under consideration.  No subtag had been proposed for any 
> other orthography.  Randy's subsequent questions were all based on the 
> assumption that two orthographies were being considered for subtags.

I still think that it was o.k. for Randy  

to verify as he did that the subtag did not need as a prefix a more general subtag indicating the dialect


(and there probably are too after all at other points in history at least other ways Ulster Scots has been written).

(Oh think of all the discussion we can cut though if anything in error or that won't come out right in the end should not be posted. And I am not pointing a finger at anyone because I think I have a tendency here even to want to end discussion once I am sure of the best way to handle things; I think this is normal.)

 

 

Mark Davis ☕ mark at macchiato.com 
Tue Apr 6 23:33:38 CEST 2010 


> I was not talking about the particular case of Ulster Scots. I'm happy with
> that proposal, as revised. I was talking about the general principle that
> Doug was discussing.

> Mark

 

I'm reasonably happy with this subtag too.  

 

But on a second thought, after reading through this discussion. I still have questions about the statement that this subtag refers to the dialect only and whether this is what Michael intended -- the orthography described in Robinson et. al. is a semi-artificial orthography as far as I can tell from a hasty glance but it does of course seem to be all there is in any case at this point for the Ulster-Scots dialect. 

 

 

Thanks!

Best,

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100406/5d084b35/attachment.htm