Principles of Operation (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REQUEST FORM
dewell at roadrunner.com
Wed Jan 30 21:43:43 CET 2008
Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
>> The Registry does not say that 'gem' indicates "all varieties of
>> German" or that it does not. It says: "Description: Germanic
> Even so, the class of "Germanic languages" is generally seen as much
> larger than the class of "all varieties (dialects?) of German". For
> instance Swedish, English, Dutch are all Germanic, but neither is a
> "variety of German".
Then perhaps it is true that Erzgebirgisch belongs there, much as Lojban
was originally registered as "art-lojban" back in 2001 before it got its
own ISO 639-2 code element.
I suppose I should point out, through all of this, that I am perfectly,
100% satisfied with everything else about Thomas Goldammer's
registration form (besides the Suppress-Script which we have agreed to
remove) and the idea of registering Erzgebirgisch. The proposal is
thorough and well-written, and the evidence supporting the dialect is
clear. The only sticking point, which unfortunately is critical to the
registration process, is deciding what the correct prefix is.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages