Language X within scope of language Y

[L.Gillam]

> "French women have red hairs".

Based on the extent of experience of the person involved, this was certainly the case, and wholly true.

Note that "French women have blond hair" and "French women have brown hair" are not excluded by the above statement. "women" has not been quantified by this statement. Should the statement have been "All French women have red hair", those women met with hair of different colour would have been, by extension, not French, which would only draw into question the definition of "French" that was being employed. If the definitions of "French", "women" and "red hair" are fixed, the response to "All" is, plainly "FALSE". Major Thompson's assertion based on his "personal ontology" would not be matched from "the" ontology.

> - either drop the "replace 3066" and the tag is used by what yu do. Or 
> consider your tag as my lang5tag by default from your worldwide authoritative 
> college. 

I think we're looking at "Version 1.1", rather than "Version 2.0" - iterative refinement? If you can make something "slightly" better, why wouldn't you? Better to have something that works slightly better now, than *might* work better in some distant future.

> Mine only permitting the "French-Women-Red Hair-First_seen-Major Thompson" 
> documentation, which gives more chance to survive to the 31 
> millions of non 
> red haired other French persons, and to the Red Haired girl 
> to travel back 
> home ... in the UK.

This is a very ad hoc scheme you are suggesting. Do you have it documented somewhere? I can find no "lang5tag" mention in Google.

> Now, about teflon. My wife noted on a note : "buy an English 
> Teflon Pan". 
> Great ! Clear. A good xml tag if any. 

A single xml tag for "English Teflon Pan"? Note that "English" here does not identify written or spoken language [context of 639], but country of origin [ISO 3166 - I don't think England as a country is included in ISO 3166, which I'm not that happy about since "English English" is a valid construction, and it means you can only have a "UK" pan, which has been made synonymous with Great Britain, which ignores Northern Ireland. But we probably don't want to go into that] - unless you want to use "English" here to denote the user instructions attached to the pan - which isn't then an "English Teflon Pan". Additionally, is the Pan English, or is the Teflon English?

Not such a clear tag. 

It does follow, as you noted, that the size of the pan is not implied by this tag. Would you advocate creating a whole new means of making such a restriction, or suggest combining your pan tags with standard measures and quantities (ISO 31-0 perhaps?) which doesn't prevent you using the standard measures in other contexts, providing the domain of application is clear (c/w English as above).

> For example the word "Chesapeake" is "victory" in "fra" and in 
> "fra-Latn-US" and "even" in fra-Latn-UK. I can suggest another difficulty 
> between "fra" and "fra-Latn-US" and "fra-Latn-US": "bush" means "ally" in the last two 
> and is broadly used in various different meaning in "fra". 
> Being serious (jokes are the best way to test a language) you see you do not need 
> billions of memory to note differences. 

This isn't a test of language. The semantics of "bush" as you suggest them are "President of the United States of America", with all the various powers that this entails. Perhaps this is where consensus ends. "bush" may or may not be considered synonymous with "ally" in some quarters, but note that the coverage of "ally" may well be somewhat broader than applying just to "bush" - indeed it would be a strange world if it were not (although apparently if you're not with him you're against him). Meaning and "association" are rather different.