Georg Schweizer gschweizer at
Tue Sep 28 07:37:56 CEST 2004

Doug Ewell wrote:

> Georg Schweizer <gschweizer at gmx dot at> wrote:
>> The code "gem-CH" should not be used for Swiss variants of
>> "gem"-languages other than Alemannic. In this extremely rare case
>> the choice of a more specific code is recommended.
> I really don't like this part in particular, because the tag "gem-CH" 
> is
> already defined by the generative mechanism to mean "Germanic languages
> (Other) as used in Switzerland."  Restricting it to one specific
> language violates the generative principle, and could possibly cause
> valid tagging of some real data to become invalid, which I thought was 
> a
> cardinal no-no.

This is why I used "SHOULD NOT" and "IS RECOMMENDED". It would still
be valid to use "gem-CH" for "Cayman Islands English as used in

Yesterday I wrote:

> The tag "gem-CH" may be used for all variants of
> "Germanic (Others)" as used in Switzerland. These comprise:
> - High Alemannic [SIL code: GSW]
> - Highest Alemannic or "Walser" [SIL code: WAE]
> - A few minor variants of Low Alemannic [SIL code: GSW]

Alemannic is the only language in the collective language code "gem"
that is "used in Switzerland".

Western Yiddish is, in my opinion, rather a variant of Yiddish [yi].
SIL treats it separately as "Germanic (Others)" [gem]:
However, an author has to be pretty brain-damaged to use "gem-CH" for
"Western Yiddish as used in Switzerland".

    "2.3 Choice of Language Tag [...]
       1. Use as precise a tag as possible, but no more specific
          than is justified."
(I know, it’s just a draft)

It’s a nice discussion, but as I agree with Michael Everson, Addison
Phillips, Doug Ewell and probably most of you to bother the 639/JAC,
let’s change the subject heading...


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list