Language Variant subtags for Sanskrit
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Jul 20 03:22:58 CEST 2010
Peter Scharf <peter underscore scharf at brown dot edu> wrote:
> A nice vague term like 'classical' is just what is needed for the
> standard Sanskrit, even better than the term, 'standard', since it is
> what has been used for the past couple of hundred years.
People are not objecting to the vagueness of the subtag 'classical' (or,
more precisely, 'classic', which is 7 letters long and therefore
syntactically legal) because it would be inappropriate to describe
Classical Sanskrit. They are objecting because its vagueness would
likely cause people to apply it to other "classical" languages, with
different meaning.
When people talk about Classical Sanskrit *in* Sanskrit (any variety),
do they use the English word "classical" to describe it?
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list