<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Hi, still again.<br><div>> From: doug@ewellic.org<br>> To: cewcathar@hotmail.com; ietf-languages@iana.org<br>> Subject: RE: FW: New variant subtags for Serbian language<br>> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:03:34 -0700<br>> <br>> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:<br>> <br>> > In other words, if Chakavian content is tagged as Croatian, then it<br>> > should be classified as a variant of Croatian; but if it is tagged<br>> > [sh], following Wikipedia's scheme, then it should be treated, along<br>> > with other content tagged [sh], as having [sh] as its macrolanguage.<br>> <br>> Serbian content should be tagged as Serbian (with a variant subtag for<br>> dialect, iff appropriate), Croatian content should be tagged as<br>> Croatian, Bosnian content as Bosnian, and so forth.<br>> <br>> Whether Wikipedia classifies Croatian as a Serbo-Croatian language is<br>> immaterial.<br><br>O.k., if you are saying that if Chakavian is currently tagged as Croatian, then it should ultimately be tagged as a variant of Croatian, whatever Croatian is classified as a macro-language of, then I get the gist of what you are saying and I agree.<br>(But of course, if on the other hand Chakavian content turns out to be tagged not as Croatian but as [sh] then it should perhaps be tagged as another language which like Croatian is in the [sh] family.)<br><br>Thanks for your many replies, and for your reiteration of what macro-languages are (in your other email).<br><br><br>Best,<br>--C. E. Whitehead<br>cewcathar@hotmail.com<br>> <br>> --<br>> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA<br>> http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell <br>> <br></div> </div></body>
</html>