Sean M. Burke
Tue, 04 Jun 2002 20:36:30 -0600

At 20:40 2002-06-04 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Mark Davis scripsit:
> >The language of Angels, right? For parity, we'll have
> >to have the language of Devils next.
>Whether or not Enochian is the language of angels, the references are
>honest ones, and the language does exist in the sense that you can get
>plenty of information about it.

I see no benefit in our being particularly restrictive in what counts as a 
language, for purposes of dispensing language codes.  I see the main 
relevent questions as: "Is it better designated with an existing tag?" and 
"Would this proposed tag lead to confusion of some sort?".

(Then there's just corrolaries like "we consider mere scripts and 
programming languages outside the domain of language tags", so that we'd 
reject i-braille, i-shorthnd-gregg, i-sql, i-pascal, etc.)

But (if I want to get all legalistic and argue by precedent) Klingon and 
Afrihili have language tags, so why not Enochian?

Sean M. Burke