Language Variant subtags for Sanskrit

[Doug Ewell]

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> I am tending to think that "classical" is a category that could and should validly attach to a variety of prefixes.

But only if the meaning of "classical" is perceived to be the same, or
nearly the same, for each of those prefixes.

I interpret Mark's posts as saying it would be OK to assign "sa-classic"
for Classical Sanskrit and "la-classic" for Classical Latin, even if the
meaning of "classical" for these two languages is quite different, since
the meaning could be deduced from the whole tag (including prefix).  My
opinion, and I believe that of others, is that variant subtags, whether
single-prefix or multiple-prefix or generic, need to have a single
specific meaning on their own.

I believe there is a definite place in BCP 47 for generic variants and
multiple-prefix variants, and that 'fonipa' is a good example of the
first and 'baku1926' is a good example of the second.  I just don't know
whether the concept of "Classical X" meets the criteria for either.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­