<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi.<BR>Either of Ciaran's proposed solutions--<BR>
(1), making de stand for a German macrolanguage;<BR>
or else, (2), using [gem] which already at ethnologue indicates many of the varieties in question (Low Saxon, Franconian, Standard German; in the language subtag registry it is listed as indicating all varieties of German so I would assume that would include Upper Saxon for which there is no code)--<BR>
would be fine with me.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR>
<BR>
<BR><BR>> From: ciaran@oduibhin.freeserve.co.uk<BR>> To: ietf-languages@iana.org<BR>>> Doug wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Karen has already pointed out that 'de' refers to Standard German. See<BR>> > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-January/007392.html<BR>> > and http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=deu .<BR>> > ...<BR>> > I no longer have a strong opinion on whether "de" or "sxu" in the best<BR>> > prefix for Erzgebirgisch -- Ethnologue is inconclusive, and others<BR>> > experts appear to differ -- but we must choose one and only one.<BR><BR>
I tend to oppose now strictly defining Erzgebirgisch as Upper Saxon unless most all native speakers of its varieties see it as such.<BR>
<BR>
(But I'm still not sure how to classify it linguistically, from the information given so far at this list, and from what's available at ethnologue and wikipedia.)<BR>
> <BR>> > <BR>> I see two alternatives to working with this nebulous concept of "de". They<BR>> are at opposite ends of a spectrum, but both are very clear (whether or not<BR>> they are "allowed").<BR>> <BR>> One is to make "de" really stand for Standard German, and to have no variant<BR>> subtags. Then any German dialect goes to one of (gsw, nds, nl, lb, sxu,<BR>> etc) as long as the experts are agreed. When they are not, as seems to be<BR>> the case with Erzgebirgisch, the answer is gem, which is of course defined<BR>> by exclusion. Other standard languages like nl and lb can likewise be<BR>> singletons, while their dialects go to gem.<BR>> <BR>> The other way is to make "de" stand for the German macrolanguage, the whole<BR>> lot. Erzgebirgisch is then a variant of "de". This is how languages other<BR>> than German are treated, viz the language subtag is expected to cover the<BR>> dialects, labelled by variant subtags. It seems to me the most<BR>> satisfactory. There remains the question of the lack of a (formalized)<BR>> relationship between the "de" macrolanguage and language subtags like gsw,<BR>> sxu etc. which have been assigned to particular forms of it.<BR>> <BR>> Ciarán Ó Duibhín<BR>> <BR>> <BR>
<BR>
Thanks!<BR>> <BR><BR><BR></body>
</html>