Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at
Tue Jan 22 09:23:59 CET 2008

In my opinion de and it are languages that were created and evolved into
what is now the mother tongue of many people. Many of the languages that
might be considered to be part of a German language are older then German
itself as a consequence. When you consider de as a macro language then I
would consider it problematic at best.

Erzgebergisch is part of a language continuum. It is indicated that it has a
specific range. The requester does not consider it a language but a part of
the Upper German branch. It would be possible and proper to model this in a
hierarchical structure like ISO-639-6 but the current standard forces us to
use a connection to one of the existing languages. In this de is probably as
good as any of the others.

The difference between the Alsatian and Erzgebergisch is that one does not
want to be part of something else, while the other does. One is aimed to be
separate, while the other aims to be recognised and to be identifiable.
Consequently I do not see much that is the same between the two proposals.

On Jan 22, 2008 8:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 11:14:32PM +0000,
>  Caoimhin O Donnaile <caoimhin at> wrote
>  a message of 19 lines which said:
> > > Prefix: de
> ...
> > it looks as if "sxu" might be a more appropriate prefix than "de".
> We may have a problem which is similar with the one encountered with
> alsatian: a lot of people use "de" not for the specific Standard
> German language, but as a macrolanguage (even if it is not classified
> as such in ISO 639-3) for all germanic languages.
> This comes in part from the fact that many of these germanic languages
> are typically not written (the native speakers write in Standard
> German).
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list