Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

[Kent Karlsson]

Den 2010-02-07 21.24, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:

> On 7 Feb 2010, at 20:05, Doug Ewell wrote:
> 
>> I would like to ask the Reviewer to make a final decision on the
>> following two questions:
>> 
>> (1) Whether two new extended language subtags shall be created for
>> Latgalian ("lv-ltg") and Standard Latvian ("lv-lvs"), which are new
>> ISO 639-3 code elements encompassed by Latvian ('lav'), recently
>> reclassified as a macrolanguage, and
> 
> I do not like this new "lav", I really do not. However, I approve the
> two extended subtags.

Note that while there is a absolute need to register "ltg" and "lvs"
as *language* primary subtags (following the 639-3 registry), there is
NO absolute need to register the *extlang* subtags "ltg" and "lvs".
I know that arguments in favour of the latter have been put forward.

>> (2) Whether three new extended language subtags shall be created for
>> Northern Bontok ("bnc-rbk"), Central Bontok ("bnc-lbk"), and
>> Southwestern Bontok ("bnc-vbk"), which are new ISO 639-3 code
>> elements encompassed by Bontok ('bnc'), recently reclassified as a
>> macrolanguage and renamed from "Central Bontoc."
> 
> Logically I must also approve this.

Note that while there is a absolute need to register "rbk", "lbk", and "vbk"
as *language* primary subtags (following the 639-3 registry), there is
DEFINITELY NO need to register the *extlang* subtags "rbk", "lbk", and
"vbk". I know of NO arguments in favour of the latter that have been put
forward, and indeed I would hope there are no reasonable such arguments.

Note that a language code being encompassed by a "macrolanguage" code
does NOT automatically imply that an *extlang* subtags is to be registered.
Indeed, any new *extlang* subtag would require extensive arguments for
them to be approved. (My opinion is that no amount of arguments should
be sufficient for registering any new *extlang* subtag.)

    Confessed extlang subtags opponent
    /kent k