jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed May 28 15:46:40 CEST 2003
Addison Phillips scripsit:
> I agree generally with Doug and John that script is far
> more important than, say, spelling or dialect in most cases, but I also
> suspect that at least a couple of counter examples can probably be cited
> (zh-hakka has already been cited as possibly one such). Languages are
> too messy for that not to happen!
I don't think it is a counterexample, because "zh" really means "Sinitic
languages" and "zh-hakka" is a particular Sinitic language. When _Hakka_
in particular is written (as opposed to writing Standard Mandarin in
either hant or hans and then reading the characters with Hakka pronunciations)
then script (latn vs. hans vs. hant) is surely subordinate to Hakka-ness.
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan at reutershealth.com
All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie
More information about the Ietf-languages