[Ltru] Re: Macrolanguages, countries & orthographies
Debbie Garside
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Wed Feb 14 16:27:43 CET 2007
David Starner wrote:
> As a user of en, enm and ang, I don't like that one bit. fr
> and en are more mutually intelligible then ang and en, and I
> don't see any use in labelling ang as en.
But I see people who are looking for a language subtag to denote Old English
using English as a starting point in a hierarchical system such as ISO
639-6; makes sense to me.
> Furthermore, if ang
> can validly be labeled en, it can also be validly labeled
> sco, adding another layer of complexity.
I note Ethnologue have classified sco under English! But you are right, to
be able to link languages by mutual intelligibility requires a
multi-parent/child relationship system. That's not what I am advocating at
the moment (emphasis on the word moment :-)).
> It's one thing to wait for ISO 639-3, which is clearly
> available in a late draft, but something that is "currently
> being designed" is not something I feel it's reasonable to
> expect people to wait for.
We have waited some 5 years for ISO 639-3. I think for the last year people
have been holding off on registration requests because of it. ISO 639-6 is
due for publication in early 2008 but I don't think people should have to
wait if their need is urgent; register variants via RFC4646. I have no
problem with that.
Best regards
Debbie
>
>
>
>
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list