<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> I do not see as much of a problem with [earlymod] for English only
as</DIV>
<DIV>> some do here, because "earlymod" is clearly formed from English
words</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with CE here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> -- but of course [16siecle] and [17siecle] were rejected for
French</DIV>
<DIV>> partly I believe because "16siecle" and "17siecle" were viewed
as</DIV>
<DIV>> generic terms (not specific to French).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I, at least, didn’t like about "16th century" and "17th century" is
that language varieties seldom fit themselves into such tidy time frames. Early
Modern English certainly doesn’t fall cleanly along any such boundaries; there
are different opinions about when it "started" (1450, 1500) and "ended" (1600,
1650, later). Embedding a time frame in the subtag could draw focus away from
the variety itself and toward the calendar; people might question whether a
sample can be "16th century" French if it was written in 1480, or in 1620,
though of course it can.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">--<BR>Doug
Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14<BR>www.ewellic.org |
www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>