Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c Resubmitted!

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, you'll see my response below!
> >
> > >So, at the very least, if these two prefix fields are part of the
> > >registration for "1606Nict" then it is necessary to explain what is the
> > >intended semantic distinction between "fr-1606Nict" and "frm-1606Nict".
> >
> > Hi, it would depend on the exact language in the document; to have two 
>tags
> > allows the content authors to use judgement.
>...
>
>RFC 4646 section 3.5 says:
>
>    Requests to add a prefix to a variant subtag that imply a different
>    semantic meaning will probably be rejected.  For example, a request
>    to add the prefix "de" to the subtag 'nedis' so that the tag
>    "de-nedis" represented some German dialect would be rejected.  The
>    'nedis' subtag represents a particular Slovenian dialect and the
>    additional registration would change the semantic meaning assigned to
>    the subtag.  A separate subtag SHOULD be proposed instead.
>
>How we procede here hinges on whether someone can nail down the difference
>between "fr-1606Nict" and "frm-1606Nict".  If they are *indistinguishable*,
>then the registration request would be in line with what RFC 4646
>has to say about multiple prefixes for variant subtags.
>
>If there really is a difference between "fr-1606Nict" and "frm-1606Nict",
>and I understand CE Whitehead's earlier postings to suggest that there is,
>then it seems that distinct subtags should be used, again based on what
>RFC 4646 has to say about multiple prefixes for variant subtags.

O.k. I will try; I am more of an expert on the 17th century than on the 16th 
because I studied it in a literature survey class and on my own informally.  
One question I have is how much of the 16th century and the 17th century are 
distinguished though I can easily see a distinction between 15th and 17th 
century French and even between 15th and 16th century French!

Nicot names his dictionary,
"THRESOR DE LA LANGUE FRANCOYSE,
TANT ANCIENNE
que Moderne"
thus he is the one that says it includes two varieties of French;
I've not been through the whole dictionary but the French seems to be 
essentially modern enough to be 16th century French.

the earlier dictionary at Artfl is
Robert Estienne (1552)  I have not been able to get into it.

However it's possible to trace particular usages through the other 
dictioinaries; some words are the same from 1606 to the present;
other words, such as scavoir (modern savoir, there was a c in moyen 
francais)
are in use only in the 1606 and the 1694 dictionary
other words come into use in later dictionaries only such as the past 
participles like trouve (with the accent ecout on a final e--the accent I've 
not reproduced--rather than another ending such as ez!)
(The problem of course is that late 16th century texts such as Montaigne's 
essais, 1690's, do use the modern past participle)

TRACE OF USAGES

See the links below to trace:

boeuf, 1606-1932
http://portail.atilf.fr/cgi-bin/dico1look.pl?strippedhw=boeuf&headword=&docyear=ALL&dicoid=ALL&articletype=1

estuy 1606-1694
http://portail.atilf.fr/cgi-bin/dico1look.pl?strippedhw=estuy&headword=&docyear=ALL&dicoid=ALL&articletype=1

scavoir

1606-1694

trouve (past participle with the accent ecout which I apologize for my 
negligence in never reproducing but you will see it
if you follow the link)
1694 ff
http://portail.atilf.fr/cgi-bin/dico1look.pl?strippedhw=trouve

EXAMPLES FROM TEXTS, 15th - 17th centuries

1.  early frm (15th century, Francois Villon, 2 texts--clearly different 
even from the mid-16th century texts!)

A.
http://www.bartleby.com/244/31.html

early frm  (15th century, Francois Villon)

Si ne suis, bien le considere,
Filz d’ange, portant dyademe
D’estoille ne d’autre sidere.
Mon pere est mort, Dieu en ait l’ame;
Quant est du corps, il gist soubz lame …	        5
J’entens que ma mere mourra,
—Et le scet bien, la povre femme—
Et le filz pas ne demourra.

Je congnois que povres et riches,
Sages et folz, prestres et laiz,	        10
Nobles, villains, larges et chiches,
Petiz et grans, et beaulx et laiz,
Dames à rebrassez collez,
De quelconque condicion,
Protans atours et bourrelez,	        15
Mort saisit sans exception.

Et meure Paris et Helaine,
Quiconques meurt, meurt à douleur
Telle qu’il pert vent et alaine;
Son fiel se creve sur son cuer,	        20
Puis sue, Dieu scet quelle sueur!
Et n’est qui de ses maulx l’alege:
Car enfant n’a, frere ne seur,
Qui lors voulsist estre son plege.

La mort le fait fremir, pallir,	        25
Le nez courber, les vaines tendre,
Le col enfler, la chair mollir,
Joinctes et nerfs croistre et estendre.
Corps femenin, qui tant est tendre,
Poly, souef, si precieux,	        30
Te fauldra il ces maulx attendre?
Oy, ou tout vif aller es cieulx.

B.

http://www.bartleby.com/244/38.html

FRERES humains, qui après nous vivez,
N’ayez les cuers contre nous endurcis,
Car, se pitié de nous povres avez,
Dieu en aura plus tost de vous mercis.
Vous nous voiez cy atachez cinq, six,	        5
Quant de la chair, que trop avons nourrie,
Elle est pieça devorée et pourrie,
Et nous, les os, devenons cendre et pouldre.
De nostre mal personne ne s’en rie,
Mais priez Dieu que tous nous vueille absouldre!	        10

Se freres vous clamons, pas n’en devez
Avoir desdaing, quoy que fusmes occis
Par justice. Toutesfois, vous sçavez
Que tous hommes n’ont pas bon sens assis;
Excusez nous—puis que sommes transsis—	        15
Envers le filz de la Vierge Marie,
Que sa grace ne soit pour nous tarie,
Nous preservant de l’infernale fouldre.
Nous sommes mors, ame ne nous harie;
Mais priez Dieu que tous nous vueille absouldre!	        20

La pluye nous a buez et lavez,
Et le soleil desechez et noircis;
Pies, corbeaulx, nous ont les yeux cavez,
Et arraché la barbe et les sourcilz.
Jamais, nul temps, nous ne sommes assis;	        25
Puis çà, puis là, comme le vent varie,
A son plaisir sans cesser nous charie,
Plus becquetez d’oiseaulx que dez à couldre.
Ne soiez donc de nostre confrairie,
Mais priez Dieu que tous nous vueille absouldre!	        30

ENVOI

Prince Jhesus, qui sur tous a maistrie,
Garde qu’Enfer n’ait de nous seigneurie:
A luy n’ayons que faire ne que souldre.
Hommes, icy n’a point de mocquerie,
Mais priez Dieu que tous nous vueille absouldre.

2.

Middle 16th century, Du Bellay

A.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nRnB7jCI7g8J:www.unil.ch/webdav/site/fra/shared/Histoire%2520litteraire/DuBellay.pdf+Du+Bellay+La+deffence+et+illustration+de+la+langue+francoyse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
Deffence, Published 1549

"Se compose donq celuy qui voudra enricher sa Langue, a l'immitation des 
meilleurs aucteurs Grez et
Latins:  et a toutes leurs plus grandes vertuz"

{Comparison of this with modern French

Je dy (for dis) cecy for ceci
the systematic differences between the latter and modern French are 
slightly,
and are slight between it and 17th ce French; for example
motz for mots  aucteur for auteur  scavans for savants  mesmes for memes
otherwise the following
ressemblent  un ou je aussi veux les plus
and
"a tout lecteur" are the same in 16th century and modern French

French in some 17th century texts is very similar to that in DuBellay, 
alors, qu'est-ce qu'on fera avec ca?  alas, waht can one do with that?}


De Bellay's poetry may be more recent as it looks more modern than this 
text.

3.

Montaigne
late 16th century
Montaigne's text however replaces the participles ending in z with the 
modern past participle which actually does not make its way into the 
dictionary till 1694!:

http://www.etudes-litteraires.com/montaigne.php

Montaigne Essaies
1595

"Comme nous voyons des terres oysives, si elles sont grasses et fertilles, 
foisonner en cent mille sortes d'herbes sauvages et inutiles, et que pour 
les tenir en office, il les faut assubjectir et employer à certaines 
semences, pour nostre service. Et comme nous voyons, que les femmes 
produisent bien toutes seules, des amas et pieces de chair informes, mais 
que pour faire une generation bonne et naturelle, il les faut embesongner 
d'une autre semence : ainsin est-il des esprits, si on ne les occupe à 
certain subject, qui les bride et contraigne, ils se jettent desreiglez, 
par-cy par là, dans le vague champ des imaginations,"

"Dernierement que je me retiray chez moy, deliberé autant que je pourroy, ne 
me mesler d'autre chose, que de passer en repos, et à part, ce peu qui me 
reste de vie : il me sembloit ne pouvoir faire plus grande faveur à mon 
esprit, que de le laisser en pleine oysiveté, s'entretenir soy-mesmes, et 
s'arrester et rasseoir en soy : Ce que j'esperois . . . "

In Montaigne's text, we still insert an s between e and c ("eschappé" for 
modern "echappé")
but as can be seen we already have the modern past participle ending in e 
with the accent ecout--except this past participle will be used irregularly 
if at all in the Americas at least until the final part of the Nicolas de la 
Salle document published in 1685.

In Montaigne however we still have "nostre" for modenr "notre", and still 
use the "y" where we now have "i".

But this is the case in some French 17th century texts too; I wish I had 
Suchon's "Petit Traite" in front of me.
>
>The only other path I see is to dig into just what is intended by
>"semantic meaning assigned to the subtag", which is probably a
>clarification question for the ltru at ietf.org list.
>
>I think the "search engine" question is irrelevant to this discussion,
>since the RFC 4647 mechanisms adequately cover all of the alternatives
>discussed so far.
>
>Randy

Randy, all; I still have questions about the search engine; I hope Mark 
Davis addressed them in his email; I'll read RFC 4647 again and again; I 
tend to skim it each time I do but I thought I had the essentials of it by 
now.
>
>_______________________________________________



--C. E. whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win? 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001