Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

[Leif Halvard Silli]

Thorgeir Holm thorgeirholm at yahoo.no wrote:
> Sat Dec 26 22:44:40 CET 2009
> 
> 	•	Previous message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of 
> Norwegian
> 	•	Next message: Re: Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian
> 	•	Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> <hermer Doug Ewell frå 26.12.2009 17:03>
> 
>> I would just like to confirm that 'nn' is the only desired Prefix for 
>> this subtag.
> 
> I'm not quite sure about that one. Maybe someone would claim that 
> 'hognorsk' is so unlike ordinary 'nn' that it would be better to use it 
> with the macrolanguage subtag 'no' (although 'hognorsk' must no doubt 
> belong to 'nn' and not 'nb' if these two split all variation of 'no' 
> between themselves).

Thorgeir informed my about this request today.

As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and 
'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how 
anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for 
Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a 
subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its 
prefix. 

'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we 
limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 'no' as 
a synonym of 'nb' and vice versa. Such an idea is opposed to the 
aspiration of Nynorsk to be the Norwegian language. And this aspiration 
is not less strong in the Høgnorsk variant of Nynorsk than in the 
official variant of Nynorsk, on the contrary. Høgnorsk is just as much 
a subclass of Norwegian as of Nynorsk. This goes back to my viewpoints 
about Macrolanguages in general in the LTRU mailing list.

Hence, both as a Høgnorsk adherer and in general, I find it difficult 
to support this registration unless both 'no' and 'nn' are recorded as 
desired prefixes.

With regards,
Leif Halvard Silli