Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c
everson at evertype.com
Wed Dec 13 17:11:49 CET 2006
At 15:45 +0100 2006-12-13, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Whitehead proposed a *specific* proposal: encoding *two* variants of
>French. As far as I understand, he never suggested to encode a
>*generic* mechanism of variants-based-on-century (which would not
>please the muslims or the jews, I believe).
We already have codes for varieties of French.
French, Middle (ca. 1400-1600)
French, Old (842- ca. 1400)
>I suggest to comment his proposal based on what he requested, not
>based on assumptions about where they *may* lead.
We have to take generativeness into account.
> > And I have argued that arbitrary calendar cutoffs don't make sense.
>> 1x00-1x99? Why not 1x50-1y11?
>Again, I do not think that Whitehead was suggesting to always encode
>variants based on centuries. He suggested that the century borders are
>more or less significant for French in this period.
How much more? How much less? Is "frm" just to be divided into
early/middle/late based on date?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages