gem-CH LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
gschweizer at gmx.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"
> 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
> 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