Missing subtags 003 and 172

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 31 15:41:43 CEST 2010

Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at gmail.com 
Sat Jul 31 09:33:20 CEST 2010 

> On 07/31/2010 04:02 AM, CE Whitehead wrote:
>> I am not sure about the utility of either of the region tags but am leaning toward considering 172 more useful; however historically the 003 might have been useful in identifiying varieties of Spanish and French.
> ...
>> Regarding the Commonwealth of Independent States,
> The "Russian in CIS" doesn't presuppose dialects 
> or varieties, but is, by idea, "just" Russian in 
> its literary norm, it being the lingua franca 
> etc. Realistically, as there is no inter-state 
> standard body on language, there arise 
> varieties, primarily in lexicon, like the recent 
> "Fursenko's changes" in Russia, or the 
> "Belarus/Belorussia" debate. However, it seems 
> that codified variations in orthography and 
> grammar do not yet exist.
Thanks for this info.
>> according to:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States#Russian_language
> ...
> Mind you, the Wikipedia is quite a poor 
> (poorest, even?) choice of reference material in 
> such matters, especially w/r to the CIS.
> -Yury
O.k., in any case, is it possible that a "Commonwealth of Independent States" variety of Russian might develop?  
Regading the Spanish, having heard both, that Puerto Rican Spanish is a bit different from Mexican Spanish.  So 003 might not be the way to encode Spanish.  Whether it must be registered or not I am not talking about.
That was all I was really trying to get at.

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list