Latvian extlang subtags

[Kent Karlsson]

I think there should be no additions to the set of extlangs.

I see the extlangs as purely a one-off for getting through
a compromise in LTRU. I see them as something static, not
to be added to.

    /kent k



Den 2010-01-22 17.30, skrev "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>:

> Doug Ewell scripsit:
> 
>> Of possible interest to this list, based on earlier discussions: Latvian
>> was converted to a macrolanguage (encompassing Latgalian and Standard
>> Latvian)
> 
> Okay then.  In addition to the existing subtag 'lv', we will also have
> the new subtags 'lvs' for Standard Latvian and 'ltg' for Latgalian.
> This list has to decide, therefore, whether to allow 'lvs' and 'ltg' as
> extlang subtags, thus permitting the tags "lv-lvs" and "lv-ltg".
> 
> I belive these lv-* forms should be permitted, on the close analogy of
> kok-*, sw-*, and uz-*.  For all of these, there are two languages in the
> macrolanguage, one of which is dominant, and so people will hesitate
> whether to use the long-established macrolanguage identifier or the identifier
> for the dominant individual language.  The forms ar-*, ms-*, and zh-*
> are very similar except that there are multiple non-dominant languages.
> 
> The only argument against is that we did not do so for et-*; however, that
> was not a reasoned decision but a matter of bad timing.