Principles of Operation (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REQUEST FORM Erzgebirgisch)

[Doug Ewell]

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 
>> (other)".
>
> 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
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ