Occitan oddity

[Kent Karlsson]

Den 2010-08-06 10.03, skrev "Philip Newton" <philip.newton at gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 04:13, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
> There
> is no need to mark it as "(post 1500)", since there is no competing
>
> "Occitan". The (post 1500) really belongs in a comment, or as an alternate
>
> Description. After all, we don't mark "en" as "English (post 1500) even
>
> though we have:
>
> Type: language
> Subtag: enm
> Description: Middle English
> (1100-1500)
> Added: 2005-10-16

True, but we do mark "el" as "Modern Greek
> (1453-)".

I think this is merely an artefact of using the descriptions in
> ISO
639-2, which include dates in certain cases (such as Modern Greek
> and
(modern) Occitan) but not in others (such as (modern) English and
(modern)
> Irish).

Personally, I'd keep those items from ISO 639-2 identical with
> what
that list has. (But shouldn't oc then be "Occitan, Provençal (1500-)"
or
> possibly "Occitan (1500-)" + "Provençal
> (1500-)"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-2_codes#O implies
> that
both names are in ISO 639-2.)

The name Provençal was removed for oc/oci 2007-03-14: see
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=oci.
See also http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php.

    /kent k