Latvian extlang subtags

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org 
Fri Jan 22 17:30:10 CET 2010 

> 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.
>
It's o.k. with me to make Latgalian and Standard Latvian subtags into extended language subtags--
if it helps mapping 
(the questions would be:
 
(1), how much Latgalian is currently tagged as [lv] because it seemed that much was untagged;
and (2), how similar are the written forms of Latgalian and Standard Latvian?--these are not identical). 
 
Extended language status would allow [lv] (the macro-language
to be mapped to both Standard Latvian and Latgalian fairly readily; however if the list of extension languages
is truely closed, as Kent says, then drop it.
Best,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
> 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.


 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100123/0f740176/attachment.htm