Addition request: alsatian

Karen_Broome at Karen_Broome at
Thu Jan 10 00:57:43 CET 2008

Well, I think the point of the "gem" tag was that it covered various 
Germanic languages, including Swiss German. We don't expect languages to 
be mutually intelligible, only dialects (and even there it can be fuzzy 
especially with this group of dialects).

I can't see any reference to "gem" in Ethnologue 15, only Ethnologue 14. 
Your "fry" issue may not have been discovered until work began on the 15th 
edition at which point this tag seems to have been deprecated. It's not in 
639-3 as far as I can tell.


"Frank Ellermann" <nobody at> 
Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces at
01/09/2008 03:35 PM
Please respond to
Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at>

ietf-languages at

Re: Addition request: alsatian

<Karen_Broome at> wrote:

 [before gsw]
> the best "broad" tag for Schwyzerdütsch and other Germanic variants
> spoken in Europe was "gem" not "de" though I realize this content
> could have previously been tagged as either "de-FR" or "gem-FR"
> depending on the classifier. 

gem also covered frr - from my POV there's an important difference 
between gsw and frr, I can understand some gsw, but none of the frr
variants.  The Ethnologue page confuses me, apparently it says that
fry does not belong to gem, but frr and frs do. 


Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list