xx-XX-nnnn vs. xx-nnnn in Chinese and German

Torsten Bronger bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:53:22 +0100

On Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2002 22:32 schrieben Sie:
>=A0On 02/13/2002 02:57:58 PM Torsten Bronger wrote:
>=A0>Mmmh... what's wrong with the "canonical" approach?
>=A0> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Language =A0 Subform =A0 Orthography
>=A0My main concern with this is that "Subform" is neither defined, nor i=
>=A0there any guidance as to in what kinds of applications or usage scena=
>=A0it's likely to be relevant.=20

The Duden, the normative guide in all countries with German population,
clearly and explicitly distinguishes between Austrian or FR German varian=
of words, or words that appear only in one variant. =A0This is what "Subf=
refers to.

Additionally the editions of the Duden record clearly the transition from=
"old" to "new" orthography. =A0This spans, if you wish, a 2D space with
a time and a country axis and with distinct positions within it. =A0In th=
sense the above approach must be understood.

(That's the good thing about Germany: Everything is so neatly=20
standardised ...)

>=A0Meaning that people will use it willy-nilly
>=A0whenever it suits their fancy, meaning lots of inconsistency. If we
>=A0resolved those kinds of issues, I probably wouldn't have any concerns=
>=A0whatever else follows.

Just list what still has to be clarified in your opinion.