<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>
<H1><FONT size=2>Hi. </FONT> </H1>Randy Presuhn <A title="Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was:	Requeststhat have been on hold)" href="mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no?Subject=Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was:Requeststhat have been on hold)&In-Reply-To=">randy_presuhn at mindspring.com </A><BR>Tue Aug 11 01:56:51 CEST 2009
<PRE>> Hi -
> . . .
> The Wikipedia materials don't really support the conlusion
> that Erzgebirgisch is a variety of Mainfraenkisch (vmf),
> particularly since their maps show that it is spoken rather
> to the north-east of that vmf's dialect region. The Wikipedia
> article at <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Franconian_German"><FONT color=#810081>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Franconian_German</FONT></A>
> specifically calls out Erzgebirgisch as not being in th Mainfraenkisch
> subgroup.
</PRE><PRE>The Wikipedia information seems to vary to me on this issue; Wikipedia finds a number of features common across East Franconian, Bavarian-Austrian, and Erzgebirgishch.</PRE><PRE>(However most of these are not necessarily features which I believe sort out origin from influence, but I am no expert whatsoever on the German languages and leave judgement on this matter to others.)
> But all this has lots of weasel words and health warnings, since this
> is an area where a lot more field and historical research would be needed
> for there to be any hope of a definitive answer.
O.k.
> When dealing with some of the nomenclature here,
> <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconian_languages#Misconceptions">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconian_languages#Misconceptions</A>
> is well worth keeping in mind.
O.k. Thanks.
> All that being said, in cases like this where there does not appear
> to be a cut-and-dried answer, I'd suggest that it makes sense to
> defer to the preferences of the party requesting registration.
Normally I agree on this, and I am probably going to defer to Thomas Goldammer on this matter; but the more I think about it the more it makes sense to register this subtag with a prefix [gem] and then wait for research to add a second prefix; [gem] is now a collection code, right? So using [gem] as the prefix will enable matching algorithms to work. </PRE><PRE>Best,</PRE><PRE>C. E. Whitehead</PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A>
> Randy
</PRE><BR></body>
</html>