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

Fri Jan 19 21:46:30 CET 2007

Hi, did IETF reject my proposals for subtags then?  (fr, frm, 16siecle or 
1606Nict and 17siecle or 1694acad??)  If so I'm wondering if it would be 
appropriate to resubmit my request with  just two tags, one for the 16siecle 
(frm; I might use 1606Nict or maybe just refer to Montaigne's Essais in the 
tag with a date, 1690s or a name Montgne or Essais) and one for the 17siecle 
(fr) probably 1694acad for the 17siecle
and even a country code could be added!
The subtag for the variant would in some way indicate that the language was 
in transition, which would make me happy!

I would not know how to take the issue up for macro language in any case, 
but feel a French macrolanguage would be a good idea but that is apparently 
outside of IETF's jurisdiction

Copies of (previous) relevant correspondance below with a slightly revised 
look at language history via the lit!

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

* * *

>From: "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>

MACROS

"> We don't have authority, however, to create macrolanguages:  only ISO
>639-3/RA can do that.
I wonder whether they are remembering to include historic languages
when defining the macrolanguages?  It seems to me that logically
they ought to be included.

Caoimhín
__________"

"Is this mechanism technically acceptable?  If so, I suggest we examine the
consequences of making "16siecle" and "17siecle" subtags of a French
macrolanguage tag.  If not, had Peter some other macrolanguage mechanism in
mind?  Otherwise, it will be back to discussion of the subtag method.

Ciarán Ó Duibhín."

* * *

DISTINGUISHING THE USE OF THE TAGS WITH fr, frm
(maybe I have not)

"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."

?? from	randy_presuhn at mindspring.com

'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 (16th century) 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 
dictionaries; 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 primarily 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!)
(But 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!)
(it's clearly frm not fr)

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

"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, which would clearly be:
frm 16siecle or 1606Nict

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

B.

De Bellay's poetry may be more recent as it in versions I have read online 
and off looks more modern than the above text by him, "Deffense"

3.

Montaigne

(late 16th century frm in transition to fr--kind of think both tags would be 
appropriate here, fr, and frm, alas, this violates a requirement that fr and 
frm uses of the tags be clearly distinct)

(Montaigne's text replaces the participles ending in z with the modern past 
participle which actually does not make its way into the dictionary till 
1694!
In Montaigne's text, we still insert an s between e and c ["eschappé" for 
modern "echappé"]
but as noted above 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, also, we still have "nostre" for modern "notre", and still use 
the "y" where we now have "i".
But this is the case in some French 17th century texts too such as the 
Nicholas de la Salle text below this; I wish I had Suchon's "Petit Traite" 
in front of me as well, which is French.):

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 . . . "

4.

Nicholas de La Salle

(late 17th century, 1685; again this is frm in transition to fr, and it's 
used in CA and the US;
I do not know which tag to give it)

(In the excerpts below, sometimes you get estoit, sometimes "etoit"--closer 
to the modern spelling of the form, without the inserted s,
but still with the oit spelling of the imperfect ending, instead of the ait 
form--
this spelling difference means a pronunciation difference too!;
you tend to get coste always instead of "cote"--for 'side';
past participles are spelled with ez, e with an accent ecout [the modern way 
as in Montaigne above], or like the infinitive form, with er; thus the past 
participle
spelling is less standardized here than in the late 16th century French of 
Montaigne who was more literary;
you get New World words such as "canot"--'canoe' and "mahis"--'maize' or 
'corn'
as well as Old Word words such as "boeufs"--'cows' now meaning 'bison'):

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/giants/lasalle/lasalle-cover.html
http://teacherweb.com/FL/Cocoa/CEWhitehead/HTMLPage15.stm

"M de la Salle sejourna 12 jours à l'embouchure de la rivière des Illinois 
dans celle de Mississipi parce que la rivière charioit* des glaces pendant 
ce temps les sauvages firent des canots d'écorces d'ormes parce qu'ils 
avoient laissé les leurs dans le lac des Illinois et estoient venus a pied 
jusque/a?la, c'estoit* en ? ?re 1681."

. . .

"Le lendemain après 4 lieuës on trouva un canot de bois avec trois sauvages 
ils gagnerent la rive droite--les hommes se sauveren[-t, but illegible 
because in the page margin] on trouva dans le canot du caymant boucanné et 
un autre morçeau de chaire, on mangea le tout et on reconnat après par les 
os que ce morceau étoit un plat costé d'homme cette chair étoit meilleure 
que celle de Caymant, on laissa en payement une alesne dans le canot, on fut 
cabaner à 5 lieuës de la le pays commençoit les roseaux estoient plus épais 
tous les arbres plus petits, le pays plus plat et plus noyé on s'eleva de 
l'eau pour cabaner.
Le lendemain après 3 lieuës on vit de loing comme de grandes prairies, étant 
proche on vit le pays noyé plein de roseaux, les arbres éloignez de la 
rivière"
. . .

"on y attacha les armes du Roy faite du cuivre d'une chaud[-re ? or ière ? 
"chaudre?," "chaudron?," 'cauldron;' or perhaps "chaudière?," 'boiler;' 
obscured in margin] on planta aussi une croix et on enterra dessous une 
plaque a plomb ou il y avoit ces mots écrits [the earlier spelling, 
"escrits," seems to be written under this but scratched off] au nom de Louis 
quatorse [? final spelling obscured in page margin] Roy de France et de 
Navarre. le 9 e avril 1682 on chanta le vescilla regis au plantement de la 
croix, puis le te deum et fait trois décharges des fusil[-s? end of word 
obscured in margin]
Les vivres manquoient et on n'av[-oit probably; obscured in margin] par jour 
qu'une poigné de mahis "

5.
Other 17th century texts, such as "La Princesse de Cleves" 1789; clearly 
modern French, fr
but such a text would not need a tag actually)

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18797

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

_________________________________________________________________
Valentine’s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline