(Revised) LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
cowan at ccil.org
Mon Aug 27 02:59:31 CEST 2007
Caoimhin O Donnaile scripsit:
> As Derrick McClure said:
> "The question whether the urban basilect of Glasgow should be classed
> as Scots has been argued for a long time, of course; but the old
> notion that it's neither good Scots nor good English and therefore
> beyond the pale was really demolished in principle by Jack Aitken,
> and the scholarly work on it by Caroline Macafee, Ron MacAulay and
> others has put that notion out of court. It IS a form of Scots, and
> therefore should be designated sco-glasgow as contrasted with
> sco-buchan, sco-borders and the like."
> So you can see that while he is emphatic that Glasgow dialect is "sco",
> he is acknowledging that it is pretty unique.
I don't quite read it that way: merely that Glasgow urban dialect is
unquestionably a dialect of Scots like any other.
> I would say that it is just a question of whether it is worth going to
> the trouble of registering "sco-glasgow" once ISO 639-3 is in place
> and "sco" is available.
"sco" is in fact already available, since it's in 639-2.
We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just,
so very just. --Gollum cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages