[Ltru] Re: Scottish English (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM)

Mark Davis mark.davis at icu-project.org
Wed Aug 22 07:58:23 CEST 2007

Karen has a reasonable case for a new variant tag. If ever Scotland gets its
own M.49 code, then the variant code be deprecated.

Of course, there are no bright lines, but on a purely informal level, for
audio it makes sense to have variants when other people speaking the same
language would have such difficulty understanding that they would need
someone to explain it to them. I'm reminded of seeing "Raging Bull" (
http://imdb.com/title/tt0081398/) years ago with a bunch of friends in
Switzerland. It was subtitled, not dubbed, and even though everyone was very
fluent in English, even the British friends ended up reading the German
subtitles to understand Robert Di Niro.


On 8/21/07, Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> [removing cross-post to ltru, which I think not yet appropriate]
> >
> > Keep in mind: This is not abstract. I have a specific business need and
> > that semantic is best represented by a region. As previously noted, I'll
> > accept a classification of Standard Scottish English, but I don't think
> > this will be as accurate for what I'm trying to classify as "Scottish
> > English." A region tag would cover any Scottish dialect of English found
> > in the film and that's the reality of this situation.
> Except... it's not a "region" subtag. Instead, you intend to indicate a
> regional variation or collection of variations of a language, to wit, an
> accent and distinctive regional locution.
> >
> > Films flagged with the Scottish English tag would be more likely
> > candidates for subtitles or redubbing than other English variants, and
> > the audience for these films would be different.
> I don't doubt this business case nor the need you've identified for it.
> The question is whether this requirement extends to other users.
> Sometimes private use tags are a better solution than trying to create a
> general purpose subtag.
> >
> > To be honest, with so much documentation on the Web, a real-life use
> > case, and a set of ears, I can't believe there is so much controversy
> > over the legitimacy of my request.
> The question is whether what you seek to identify is a real language
> variation, in the sense that we can say it is distinct enough to warrant
> its own subtag. Again, I don't doubt the authenticity of your request
> and am inclined to support it. But it does open the question as to what
> level of detail we should register variants for. Given the profusion of
> subtags for the relatively limited (in terms of range and speaker
> population) language of Slovenian, one suspects that there is
> substantial latitude for registration for English variations.
> OTOH, there was quite a long thread this year on this list about the
> practical limits of language tags. They cannot be expected to identify
> every distinct variation in language. In most cases we are all satisfied
> to say that "en" is English... and sometimes add a closer regional
> variation. But truly detailed linguistic variation begins to test the
> capabilities of tags. In the case of "en-scottish", I can see the
> justification, but am concerned about where the line gets drawn.
> > I would think the controversy would
> > be over the best way to represent this linguistic entity as there's no
> > way other than a variant tag in RFC 4646 and it seems like there should
> > be.
> Why? Variants cover whatever the predefined subtags do not. What
> specific need is there that variants don't address?
> > I will need to employ a private use tag if this request is not
> > granted and whatever the resulting tag is, I will need to encourage this
> > use throughout the entertainment industry. If spelling matters in
> > written contexts, surely accents matter in spoken contexts -- even if no
> > differences in word choice existed.
> Yes. And private use might be a good solution in some cases (and not in
> others).
> >
> > English is a language and Scotland is a well-defined region. There is no
> > controversy about these two statements -- why is there so much
> > controversy over putting the two together? Isn't this what the variant
> > tag is for?
> >
> Scotland is a well-defined region. Alabama is a well-defined region. San
> Jose, California, is a well-defined region. The question is whether
> these describe useful language variations. I agree with Randy that the
> lack of a Scotland region is marginally surprising. But not much more
> than the lack of a "southern USA" region is. One may remark upon local
> dialects or accents (I have certainly abused Mark Twain's Puddinhead
> Wilson as an example in this regard) and still find that the most
> appropriate available tag is of a "higher order" (such as en-US).
> This is not necessarily a weakness. It is just a measure of the overall
> granularity of language tags. I do think that 'scottish' is a reasonable
> subtag to register (we have one for Oxford spelling and Boontling, for
> heaven's sake). But there is also precedent on this list for not
> registering "practical" subtags that do not represent well-documented
> language variations (es-americas).
> Addison
> --
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070821/d83a8a4c/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list