Criteria for languages
cowan at ccil.org
Fri Dec 11 23:27:59 CET 2009
CE Whitehead scripsit:
> However, on a quick check, I note that [vro] was not made an extension
> language anyway it seems (?? but I am only basing this on Richard
> Ishida's list of macrolanguages
It wasn't, and it's too late now. IMHO it should have been.
> I did not get an accurate count but well over 100 of these are sign
> languages (what these have in common is they all use signs--I guess
> that's something of a common encoding system though the signs vary?);
The reasons for treating sgn as a macrolanguage are historical.
> the next largest group seems to be a family in the Austronesian language
> group with the prefix ms, followed by the various Arabic languages
> (prefix [ar]), the various Chinese languages (prefix [zh]) (both
> the Chinese and the Arabic are cases where the written forms of these
> languages is generally about identical), 2 Indo-European languages from
> India with the prefix [kok], North and South Uzbek,and Swahili .Best,
ms = Malay, kok = Konkani.
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
Any sufficiently-complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc,
informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
--Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming (rules 1-9 are unknown)
More information about the Ietf-languages