Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, my reply to Ciarán  is at the bottom!
>
>Thanks to John, Addison and Doug for clarifying that there is no technical
>objection to having several (in the paradigmatic sense) prefixes associated
>with a subtag.  And to Doug for clarifying that his reservations about the
>French case arise from the lack of a principled way of deciding which 
>prefix
>to use with a common subtag.  I'll take that up later, if I may.
>
>Meanwhile, I would agree with Addison that
><<the tag "frm-1694" would seem to be nonsensical: if "1694" identifies
>"Early Modern French", it doesn't make any sense to allow the tag
>"frm-1694", which means approximately "the Early Modern French variation of
>Middle French".>>
>if it were true that both the prefix and the subtag are describing the
>nature of the language.  But it becomes clear from the previously-favoured
>form of the subtags, 16siecle and 17siecle, that there are two dimensions
>involved, the nature of the language (frm vs fr) and the chronology (16eme
>vs 17eme).  So I take "frm-17siecle" to mean text dating from the 17th
>century but which is not intelligible to the speaker of Modern French; 
>while
>"fr-16siecle" is text dating from the 16th
>century but which is intelligible to the speaker of Modern French.
>
>Ciarán Ó Duibhín
>
Yes, that was the intent.

Thanks.

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

_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy 
Awards®   http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2