Variant subtag proposal: Hgnorsk variety of Norwegian

[Doug Ewell]

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> Which is exactly why it's a Good Thing to keep the ISO 639-5 
>> collection codes around.  Sometimes you know only that a given sample 
>> is in some Uto-Aztecan language, not which one.  It's better to tag 
>> it imprecisely as "azc" than incorrectly, or not at all.
>
> On the other hand, if all you know is that the document is in an 
> indigenous language of California, you have no clue, because at least 
> seven indigenous language families (Hokan, Chumash, Uto-Aztecan, 
> Na-Dene, Penutian, Yukian, Algic) are or were spoken there, of which 
> Hokan and Penutian may or may not be legitimate groupings, and to make 
> things worse, Chumash, Penutian, and Yukian lack 639-5 code elements. 
> (To say nothing of the Indo-European, Muskogean, Tarascan, and 
> Austronesian languages spoken there.)

Well, if you truly don't know anything, then you don't, and in that case 
your choices are "und" (or maybe "und-US") or no tag at all.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­