A stake in the ground
everson at evertype.com
Sun Dec 6 23:28:29 CET 2009
On 6 Dec 2009, at 22:21, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I would agree that it doesn't bind us, but I suggest that it should
> guide us. Alternatively, we need to be able to explain why "the
> overwhelming majority of 'zh' is Mandarin" justifies extlangs while
> overwhelming majority of 'lv' is Standard Latvian" doesn't.
EVERYONE knows that written Chinese covers a variety of languages, as
different as some of the Romance languages in some cases.
Latgalian appears to be a language somewhere intermediate between
Latvian and Lithuanian. Whether this is a language intermediate
between them, or a dialect of Latvian with a lot of Lithuanian
influence, or a dialect of Lithuanian with a huge amount of Latvian
superstrate, is not (in any of these discussions) clear.
It is not clear to me that there is a "macrolanguage" that encompasses
Latvian and anything else.
This should be decided by LINGUISTICS -- not by possibly erroneous
taggings by the LoC or anyone else.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages