Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian
kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Fri Jan 1 18:57:37 CET 2010
Den 2010-01-01 18.12, skrev "Leif Halvard Silli"
<xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no>:
> As another Høgnorsk adherer, I would like to ask that _both_ 'nn' and
> 'no' are registered as desired prefixes. I cannot understand how
> anything else is possible. Both 'nn' and 'no' are equally good for
> Norwegian Nynorsk. Thus, considering that 'hognorsk' represents a
> subclass of Nynorsk, both 'nn' and 'no' should be permitted as its
> 'nn' is more precise, but so is 'nb' - for Norwegian Bokmål. If we
> limit 'hognorsk' to 'nn', then we support the tendency to align 'no' as
> a synonym of 'nb' and vice versa.
Not at all.
> Such an idea is opposed to the
> aspiration of Nynorsk to be the Norwegian language. And this aspiration
> is not less strong in the Høgnorsk variant of Nynorsk than in the
> official variant of Nynorsk, on the contrary.
If Nynorsk becomes the only official language of Norway (in some future)
then documents in then-official Norwegian should be language tagged as "nn".
IIRC there has been a long-standing
> Høgnorsk is just as much
> a subclass of Norwegian as of Nynorsk.
And Norwegian is a subclass of Germanic languages which is a subclass
of Indo-European languages...
> This goes back to my viewpoints
> about Macrolanguages in general in the LTRU mailing list.
Macrolanguage codes are just administrative expedience, catering for
preexisiting codes in ISO 639-2. If language coding/tagging had
started with what is now ISO 639-3, I would guess there would be no
macrolanguage codes at all.
> Hence, both as a Høgnorsk adherer and in general, I find it difficult
> to support this registration unless both 'no' and 'nn' are recorded as
> desired prefixes.
I'm still opposed to registering "hognorsk" for "higher groupings" (like
'no'), as I said before. It should be formally registered only with
'nn' as prefix. As I noted before, this does not make "no-hognorsk",
or even "fi-hognorsk" or "und-hognorsk", ill-formed, just disrecommended.
However, I don't think it would be wise to use any of these.
> Further more: When 'hogorsk' becomes a tag, then it would not surprise
> me if the conservative Bokmål adherants - the socalled Riksmål group -
> would be interested in registering - let's say 'riksmal' as a variant
> tag. And I have little doubt in my mind that they would like to see
> both 'no' and 'nb' as desired prefixes.
(Reading "(variant) subtag" for "tag".) I would be opposed to that too.
For that (possible) case, only "nb" should be formally registered as prefix.
More information about the Ietf-languages