fon* variants

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Thu Dec 14 20:55:06 CET 2006

Hi, Frank:
">With "1694" or similar it's clearer, it will be bound to some
>languages including "fr" (not necessarily the same definition
>for all prefixes).  And as long as Old English and Esperanto
>aren't listed as prefixes for "1694" such combinations can be
>sorted out as nonsense by a tool."

For me 1694 is too precise; I want to include a slightly wider period 
including some of its variety but not so wide as simply fr or frm.

The neat thing about sorting out combinations like en-16esiecl  or en-16emes 
(or en-1694 but I prefer not to use 1694 here)
is that documents coded as such could still be classified as en, English by 
any tool!

I myself was disappointed to discover that moyen francais was frm and not 
something more appropriate like fr-moyen

because then it could be classified as French as it is really French, very 
accessible to modern French speakers.

Alas, had English speakers encountered Middle Scots (that is, Scots dialect 
of English) instead of Chaucer's Middle English in readings of English from 
that period they (we; I am one) would have seen how similar European 
languages from the 14th century on are to the modern version.


--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial!

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list