Adding variant subtags 'aluku' and 'nduyka' and 'pamaka' fordialects
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Aug 24 02:03:24 CEST 2009
"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:
>> I have seen seemingly reasonable subtags proposed to this list being
>> turned down since they were considered derogatory by some.
> The subtag itself was changed, if I recall correctly, to something
> deemed less-offensive or inoffensive. I believe the registration
> itself did occur (as 1959acad).
That's quite different from the subtag "being turned down."
> Certainly we should try to avoid creating subtags that are known to
> use derogatory or offensive terms for a language or its variant or the
> speaker population that uses it.
Wait a minute, now we've gone from Kent's:
> One possible worry here is that this designation **may** be considered
> derogative. Not that I know that it is. I'm just worried that it might
... which is essentially a hunch that if one variation is considered
derogatory, then another one *might* be -- to creating "subtags that are
known to use derogatory or offensive terms"? Maybe we should wait and
see what actual evidence Pascal or someone else can provide, one way or
the other, before proceeding on the assumption that there is a problem.
> Thus, I agree with Kent, however, that we should be careful about the
> term for 'djk' used in the registry.
I have a suggestion. Why don't we stop worrying about the Description
field for 'djk' and focus on the variants that Pascal wanted to
We keep doing this on this list -- taking a small problem and extracting
from it a big, loosely related problem never envisioned by the proposer.
Someone proposes a variant subtag for one flavor of a language, and
inevitably someone else will protest that we have to register subtags
for the other flavor or it will be discriminatory. This happened with
Belarusian well before the actual request came in to register
Here we have someone who wants variants for three dialects of an ISO
639-3 language, and he NON-normatively refers to that language by a name
that ISO 639-3 did not use. Now, la, we have a big debate over whether
the NON-normative Description field for this primary language subtag
needs to be changed to match, and whether one or more spellings proposed
for that name might be offensive -- no evidence that it is, just fear.
It was suggested that we need to take into account what name the native
speakers might want to be used for their language in an official context
like the Registry. Ethnologue says there are 22,090 speakers with a
literacy rate under 10%. Are we really going to insist on this kind of
Let's just register the three variants, with their NON-normative
references to "the Busi Nenge Tongo Creole." The Prefix field 'djk'
will indicate what the base language is; that is what the Prefix field
is for. Any user who looks up the subtag 'djk' and is overly concerned
that the name "Aukan" doesn't match "Busi Nenge Tongo Creole" can do her
own research, and it will probably be a lot more informative than all
Once in a while we ought to put a little faith in the expertise of the
requester. Pascal Vaillant's affiliation is listed as "CELIA (Centre
d'Étude des Langues Indigènes d'Amérique, CNRS/IRD), Université des
Antilles et de la Guyane, Cayenne, French Guiana." I'd be willing to
wager he is not just pulling his information about indigenous South
American languages out of a hole in the ground.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages