Pending requests

[Michael Everson]

> On 25 Nov 2015, at 19:44, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Re: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/10905 
> 
> I'm confused how Odgen's Basic English is interesting to the web in general.

The web is not the only application. Having said that there is http://ogden.basic-english.org

> My understanding is that it's a reasonably dead language.  tlh-pIqaD probably has more life than Odgen's Basic English.

We have a lot of subtags for very marginal uses. 

> It's also unclear to me that Basic English even counts as a dialect/variant of English.  

Certainly it does. It uses entirely English morphemes and English grammar. It just uses circumlocution to handle vocabulary gaps.

We have not applied Ethnologue criteria to every subtag we have, either. 

> Though "English" users could probably make sense of "Basic English", I suspect a native "Basic English" speaker would have as much success understanding normal "English" as an English speaker might with Germanic languages.

I disagree. A little Hemingway:

There were only two Americans stopping at the hotel. They did not know any of the people they went through on the flight of steps to and from their room. Their room was on the second floor facing the sea. It also faced the public garden and the stone work in the memory of war. There were big trees and green long seats in the public garden. In the good weather there was always a painter with his support for picture. Painters liked the way the trees grew and the bright colors of the hotels facing the gardens and the sea. Italians came from a long way off to look up at the work of art in the memory of war. It was made of metal of copper and tin and was bright in the rain. It was raining. The rain came drop by drop from the trees. Water was in small stretches of water on the small-stone path. The sea came loose in a long line in the rain and slipped back down the edge of sea to come up and loose again in a long line in the rain. The motor cars were gone from the square by the work of art in the memory of war. Across the square in the doorway of the café a waiter was looking out at the square with nobody and nothing in. 

There were only two Americans stopping at the hotel. They did not know any of the people they passed on the stairs on their way to and from their room. Their room was on the second floor facing the sea. It also faced the public garden and the war monument. There were big palms and green benches in the public garden. In the good weather there was always an artist with his easel. Artists liked the way the palms grew and the bright colors of the hotels facing the gardens and the sea. Italians came from a long way off to look up at the war monument. It was made of bronze and glistened in the rain. It was raining. The rain dripped from the palm trees. Water stood in pools on the gravel paths. The sea broke in a long line in the rain and slipped back down the beach to come up and break again in a long line in the rain. The motor cars were gone from the square by the war monument. Across the square in the doorway of the café a waiter stood looking out at the empty square.

> It may be that it should be classified as a variant of English, but it is not at all obvious to me that it is a variant rather than a closely related language in its own right.

It is obvious to me that it is. 

> What is the pressing need for a Basic English tag?

Existing text in Basic English, and a forthcoming novel of 27,000 words. 

> I'm much happier with the idea of a tag for "simplified language" as a general tag to be arbitrarily added to any language (which is a completely different think than what's being requested here).

That is not the same thing as the specifically controlled vocabulary of Basic English. 

> If we do decide that "basic English" is a variant of English (I'd rather have language experts' agreement on that), then I'd prefer that it have a tag more like "-ogden" as -basiceng may lead people to expect more of a Voice of America type simplified English rather than a different language. 

I don’t believe “Basic English” means anything but the variety specified but Ogden and his followers.

There are 229 items in the Library of Congress with the words “basic English” in their titles. Some of these may use the ordinary adjectival use of the word, but a great many of them are probably Ogden’s variety. A subtag could help users distinguish these. 

> On 25 Nov 2015, at 20:01, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> and Mark Davis wrote:
> 
>> ​I disagree with "basiceng". What people need is a variant to indicate a simplified version of a language. That is not satisfied by "Basic English", which nobody has a demonstrated need for.

I have a need for it. No different from many of the subtags I’ve sponsored, like the varieties of Cornish and Cornu-English. 

> "Basic Foo" and "Simple Foo" are not the same thing, and without being able to read his mind, I suspect one reason Michael proposed both might be to draw attention to that fact.

Quite so. 

> On 25 Nov 2015, at 22:15, David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I support Basic English; it's a well-defined dialect of English, and there's a reasonable presumption of usefulness. 


I think so, too. It is well specified. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/