FW: Update of en-scouse registration
Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:46:12 +0100
Should really have sent this to the list as well. Ooops.
From: Jon Hanna [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 09 October 2002 11:52
To: Michael Everson
Subject: RE: Update of en-scouse registration
> >It's a question I would like answered, but if the answer is "no" I would
> >still suggest that en-GB-scouse more accurately reflects the dialect than
> >en-scouse and is comparable to the following:
> It doesn't contrast with any other variety of Scouse.
But it does compare with other varieties of en-GB.
> >As well as the sgn-US-MA suggested as a possible registration in the
> >examples in 3066 itself.
> That is a different use of the geographical markers. Martha's
> Vineyard Sign Language is not genetically related to American Sign
> Language. Indeed, it is related to Kentish Sign Language!
Nonetheless a general hierarchy applies. And has been applied in all other
registrations as far as I can see. Of course it's imprecise and raises lots
of questions like "is Ulster-Scots a language or a dialect of English?, and
if a dialect of English is it a sub-dialect of en-IE, en-GB or neither?" and
"should there be a sgn-IE-male and sgn-IE-female?" to take just two examples
from Ireland. So I'm not offering that en-GB-scouse is perfect, just maybe
> Is it really necessary for us to deprecate a unique tag (with all the
> inherent instability this implies)? I am disinclined to accept this.
I'm not sure, that was the question that lead me to state that I was
informally asking the list about the registration.