<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi. I have made some quick comments on some of the varieties that might be covered with a generic subtag 'classic' which I do tend to oppose. (Sorry to any who favor the generic subtag 'classic'.)<BR><BR>Michael Everson everson at evertype.com <BR>Wed Jul 14 19:58:53 CEST 2010 <BR>> On 14 Jul 2010, at 17:21, Doug Ewell wrote:<BR>>> Now, Elizabeth Pyatt argues that the word "classical" really does have essentially the same meaning for multiple, diverse languages. If that<BR>>> is generally held to be true, *then* perhaps a generic 'classic' subtag would be appropriate. In that case, the question might be whether<BR>>> 'classic' should be registered with no prefix, implying it is potentially relevant to all languages (which can never be proven), or whether we should start with a short list of prefixes (Elizabeth mentioned Sanskrit and Latin) and add more as evidence comes to light.<BR>> • Classical Sumerian (literary language of Sumer, ca. 26th to 23rd c. BCE)<BR>O.k. <BR>> • Middle Egyptian (literary language of Ancient Egypt from ca. the 20th century BCE to the 4th century CE)<BR>No knowledge here.<BR>> • Old Babylonian (The Akkadian language from ca 20th to 16th c. BCE, the imitated standard for later literary works)<BR>No real knowledge; perhaps this would work.<BR>> • Classical Hebrew (the language of the Tanakh, in particular of the prophetic books of ca. the 7th and 6th c. BCE)<BR>Yes but there is a tag for ancient Hebrew in existence -- [hbo]; are you narrowing it?<BR>> • Classical Chinese (based on the literary language of the Zhou Dynasty from ca. the 5th c. BCE)<BR>O.k. I guess -- but is this the same as [lzh] 'literary Chinese' or are you narrowing it (in any case, without guidelines, it will be confused with literary Chinese I think).<BR>> • Classical Greek (Attic dialect of the 5th c. BCE)<BR>> • Classical Sanskrit (defined by Pāṇini's grammar, ca. 4th c. BCE) [3]<BR>> • Classical Tamil (Sangam literature ca. 1st c. BCE to 4th c. CE, defined by Tolkāppiyam)[4]<BR>No real knowledge<BR>> • Classical Latin (literary language of the 1st c. BCE)<BR>Yes, but what we really need in this case is a variant subtag for medieval Latin. The tag [la] covers Classical Latin and Classical Latin as it has been revived as a language for reading and for the Church;<BR>Medieval Latin is quite different and is not well covered in the subtag [la]. <BR>>. • Classical Mandaic (literary Aramaic of Mandaeism, 1st c. CE)<BR>Insufficient knowledge.<BR>> • Classical Syriac (literary Aramaic of the Syriac church, 3rd to 5th c.)<BR>O.k.<BR>> • Classical Armenian (oldest attested form of Armenian from the 5th c. and literary language until the 18th c.)<BR>Insufficient knowledge.<BR>> • Middle Persian (court language of the Sassanid Empire, 3rd to 7th c.)<BR>Unsure, perhaps.<BR>> • Classical Telugu (Dravidian language]<BR>Insufficient knowledge<BR>> • Classical Arabic (based on the language of the Qur'an, 7th c.)<BR>O.k.; but it could have one of two prefixes, [ar] and [ar-arb]/[arb] -- I think you need to document the prefixes so that it's not used with the tags for the non-standard regional varieties. <BR>> • Classical Kannada (language of the Rashtrakuta literature, 9th c.).[5]<BR>> • New Persian (language of classical Persian literature, 9th to 17th c.)<BR>Oops I don't support two uses with Persian. This is confusing. Supposedly New Persian, in part because of the many Arabic loan words,<BR>is no longer the same language as Middle Persian -- that is these two are not mutually comprehensible; if they are to be treated as a continuous variety it's going to have to be specified as 3rd to 17th century and it's going to definitely need a comment I would think.<BR>> • Classical Japanese (language of Heian period literature, 10th to 12th c.)<BR>> • Classical Icelandic (the language of the Icelandic sagas, 13th c.)<BR>> • Classical Gaelic (language of the 13th to 18th c. Scottish Gaelic literature)<BR>As for Japanese and Gaelic I think there are some list members with considerably more expertise.<BR>> • Early Modern English (language of KJV Bible and Shakespeare, 16th to 17th c.)<BR>This sounds awful to my mind. I would not classify any period in English as classical but I suppose Shakespearean English would be the best choice . . . <BR>But we just do not use the term 'classical' to refer to English. <BR>> • Classical Ottoman Turkish (language of poetry and administration of the Ottoman empire, 16th to 19th c.)<BR>> • Classical Maya (the language of the mature Maya civilization, 3rd to 9th c.)<BR>> • Classical Quechua (lingua franca of the 16th c. Inca Empire)<BR>> • Classical Nahuatl (lingua franca of 16th c. central Mexico)<BR>> • Classical K'iche' (language of 16th c. Guatemala)<BR>> • Classical Tupi (language of 16th -18th c. Brazil)<BR><BR>That's my two cents on this. (I did this quickly, no research; sorry. Thus I did not look up every single one of these to see what the current language subtags were or what was considered to be 'classical'; but I did at least briefly check any I thought I knew something about and commented on and I think I've made my point.)<BR><BR>Again I oppose the creation of a generic subtag with 'classic';<BR>however, if we do opt for a more generalized subtag 'classic', I would at least seek a comment with some guidelines on prefixes -- if not a list of prefixes and additional comments about use.<BR><BR>Best,<BR>C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR><BR> </body>
</html>