Reminder: Ulster Scots

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Fri Apr 2 04:18:45 CEST 2010


CE Whitehead cewcathar at 
Thu Apr 1 17:23:12 CEST 2010 
> Phillips, Addison addison at 
> Wed Mar 31 16:55:57 CEST 2010 

>> I'm not a big fan, personally, of dated subtags. They are non-mnemonic, unattractive, and could be misleading (things >> published in 1603 might use the 1606 orthography). It is just as possible that a new wordlist gets published (next year >> or ninety years from now) and it still be considered the same orthography (new words are created all the time) and 

>> thus still "2006ulst" even though there exists, say, a 2010 revision thereof.
>> If a date is reasonable and meaningful for a given orthography, I'm all for it. But this case doesn't *necessarily* fit.
>Maybe ulster ?
> or ulster (or lallans  though I think lallans is now dated)-robinson ?  That is, to register a variant for the dialect and 

> then one for the orthography?
> Or ulster-2006 ? that is o.k. too.
Oops! I met ulster (or ullans)-robinson
and not (lallans)-robinson.

I do agree that a subtag such as 2006 would scare away some users -- although I'm not sure how many;
2006ulst might be a bit easier to make sense of (but ulster-2006 would be better still, but I agree that people are going to drop the 2006 in this case).
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at 
Thu Apr 1 21:52:05 CEST 2010 

> But then the registration request should be amended to refer to the
> Ulster dialect, rather than a specific orthography.
Cannot it refer to the orthography of the specific dialect?
But I do still support registering a separate subtag to cover the othography.
But it's up to Michael I guess; he can cover both language and orthography with one subtag if that's his preference; or he can have two subtags.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at
>    /kent k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list