<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Pending requests</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Den 2015-11-25 21:01, skrev "Doug Ewell" <<a href="doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
> Shawn Steele wrote:<BR>
...<BR>
> and Mark Davis wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>> I disagree with "basiceng". What people need is a variant to indicate<BR>
>> a simplified version of a language. That is not satisfied by <BR>
>> "Basic English", which nobody has a demonstrated need for.<BR>
<BR>
> "Basic Foo" and "Simple Foo" are not the same thing, <BR>
<BR>
Perhaps...<BR>
<BR>
> and without <BR>
> being able to read his mind, I suspect one reason Michael proposed both <BR>
> might be to draw attention to that fact.<BR>
<BR>
Like confusing everyone that does not have English as native language,<BR>
or have never heard of **Ogden's** Basic English before...<BR>
<BR>
I'm indifferent as to whether one should add a variant subtag for "Ogden Basic<BR>
English", but if added, the subtag must *not* be "basiceng", as that would<BR>
certainly be interpreted as some/any kind of "simplified English". "ogden",<BR>
"ogdeneng" would be fine.<BR>
<BR>
-------<BR>
<BR>
Ok, I've mentioned it before, but here it is again:<BR>
<BR>
I generally agree with Shawn and Mark here.<BR>
<BR>
BUT, I would prefer a scheme based on CEFR<BR>
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#Common_reference_levels">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#Common_reference_levels</a>,<BR>
<a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf</a>).<BR>
<BR>
The A levels are, however, so basic that it is hard to give any new information<BR>
(like in a Wikipedia article or a news article/podcast/etc). So for the purpose<BR>
of "simplified language tagging" the A levels could be skipped (IMO).<BR>
<BR>
The C2 level, IIUC, isn't quite like "advanced native speaker", but close.<BR>
<BR>
So, instead of "-simple" or "-basic", something along the lines of:<BR>
<BR>
-levelB1<BR>
-levelB2<BR>
-levelC1<BR>
-levelC2<BR>
<BR>
(referring to the CEFR levels) would be my preference. No prefixes listed, i.e.<BR>
these variant subtags should be recommendably applicable to any language.<BR>
<BR>
Thus nobody (or 'no body') "controlling" the simplification, no particular dictionary<BR>
or similar, as that would defy applicability to most languages.<BR>
<BR>
True, the descriptions of the levels may be a bit hand-waving, but that is the<BR>
very thing that makes them applicable to any language.<BR>
<BR>
As always, it is the tagger's responsibility to see to that "level" tag sufficiently well<BR>
corresponds to the CEFR level of the content (for a reader/listener interested in the<BR>
subject of the content).<BR>
<BR>
There are other schemes<BR>
(see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#General_scales">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#General_scales</a>),<BR>
but they seem much harder to use (just for the level naming alone).<BR>
<BR>
/Kent K<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>