Latvian extlang subtags
kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Sat Jan 23 23:11:04 CET 2010
Den 2010-01-23 19.38, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug @ ewellic . org>:
> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
> > I think there should be no additions to the set of extlangs.
> > I see the extlangs as purely a one-off for getting through
> > a compromise in LTRU. I see them as something static, not
> > to be added to.
> Whereas I see the compromise as having been a reflection of continuing
> reality and not a petty, one-off political battle.
> People talk about "Chinese" when they might say "Mandarin" or
> "Cantonese" if pressed for specifics. Likewise, so I have been told,
> people talk about "Latvian" when it turns out they might really mean
> either Standard Latvian or Latgalian. If this is the criterion by which
> "zh" was assigned extlangs, then that same criterion should be applied
> to Latvian,
If that was the case, *all* macrolangauges would have *each* of their
encompassed languages as extlangs. And that is not the case. Only a
small subset was selected. And that was for purposes of the compromise
only; not something to be continued to be reanalysed.
> and this decision process (yea or nay) should continue as
> long as ISO 639-3/RA decides to convert individual languages into
> macrolanguages. Your fundamental objection to the extlang mechanism
> should not enter into this.
I still see my objection as perfectly valid.
More information about the Ietf-languages