Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Thorgeir Holm thorgeirholm at
Fri Jan 1 22:26:02 CET 2010

<hermer Michael Everson frå 01.01.2010 21:50>

>> The macro 'no' is simply a political creation, and people fill it  
>> with whatever ideas they have about this concept.
>> It is vital that 'no-hognorsk' be valid, the practical
>> circumstances in Norwegian language tagging being as chaotic as
>> they are.
> Vital?

Of course: if 'no' is valid for 'nb' and 'nn', for whatever reasons 
people might have to tag them thus (and they do), the same should apply 
to -hognorsk.

> We have nb and nn. You want to be able to tag a particular kind of nn.
> Linguistically, that is what I think the tag hognorsk should attach to.

Of course, there is no doubt about it. But the tag 'no' is not 
linguistically based, it is political (se the top of this post, from my 
previous post). So whereas 'nn-hognorsk' is the correct linguistic tag, 
'no-hognorsk' should be a valid "political" tag as long as the political 
tag 'no' is around.

> As I said, gem-hognorsk is just as valid as no-hognorsk might be, but  
> neither seems to me to be necessary.

They are not necessary, but they exist and are in use (as far as the 
'no' tag concerns). 'no' is also not necessary, in my opinion, but if it 
is available, other related tags should reflect this.

>> Thinking exclusively normative, Michael Everson et al. are of course  
>> right that 'hognorsk' should be tagged directly under 'nn'. The  
>> problem is that the macro 'no' doesn't follow this normative thinking,
> The "macro 'no'" doesn't "follow any thinking" at all. People do.

Of course, my fault, that is what I meant to say. "*The use of* the 
macro 'no' doesn't follow this normative thinking."

> And  
> anyone who is able to recognize høgnorsk will know that it is a  
> variety of nynorsk. Otherwise they will just look for ø's and k's and  
> think "not Danish, must be Norwegian".

Well, in some cases you cannot distingusih 'nb' from 'da', but clearly 
'nn', so I don't see how relevant this is: guesswork shouldn't be the 
base for best tagging practice. My concern is how localizers can tag 
their products best for people to find them.

>> and so there is a wish to follow the terrain and not the map.
> I don't follow this metaphor either. And don't think that metaphors  
> are really very helpful here.

It's just what I said before: the normative descriptions for tags is the 
map, and how people use these tags and how they exist in tagged 
products, is the terrain.

Anyway, the point is: the existing 'no' macro doesn't fit into the 
normative system which is used to say that only 'nn-hognorsk' should be 
stated. 'no' is a political heritage, and so one should either rectify 
its status, or allow variant subtags to use 'no' as well.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list