<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi.<BR>
Anthony Aristar <A title="Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)" href="mailto:ietf-languages%40alvestrand.no?Subject=Re%3A%20Request%20of%20new%20variant%20subtag%20for%20kichwa%20%28inside%20qu%29&In-Reply-To=%3CD1B5B5D0-41C1-427C-AC2B-F2121AFDC291%40linguistlist.org%3E">aristar at linguistlist.org </A><BR>Tue Jun 7 15:49:40 CEST 2011 <BR>
> A question... Since Unified Kichwa is not just an orthography but represents a unified grammar as well, isn't a language code more <BR>
> appropriate than a sub tag?<BR><BR><BR>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:36 AM, <A href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">mailler at phare.normalesup.org</A> wrote:<BR><BR>
>> The list of the individual language covered (ISO 639-3 codes) is the<BR>>> following :<BR>>> qud, qxr, qug, qvi, qvj, qvz, qxl, quw.<BR>>> I think the most logical is to use the "qu" prefix since the Unified<BR>>> Kichwa does not adress all these dialects individually (the reference<BR>>> grammar book does not make a difference between dialects).<BR><BR>
<BR>
I tend to agree with Anthony that if Sylvain Mailler is eliminating all other dialects except the macro-language from consideration . . . and if differences include grammar then he perhaps needs a language code, if his variety meets the criteria for a language (separate literature, identity, etc.); qu should be listed at the macrolanguage. So +1 for Anthony's suggestion.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR> </body>
</html>