Reminder: Ulster Scots
everson at evertype.com
Tue Mar 30 09:51:41 CEST 2010
On 30 Mar 2010, at 08:33, Peter Constable wrote:
> The difference is that we know there weren't frequent updates at 2, 7, 4, 12... year intervals after the 1606 and 1694 publications. In the Ulster case, if another doc is published in 2012 with minor tweaks, are we going to register 2012ulst?
What if another doc is not published until 2042?
It is a linguistic question, not a question of reform timing. If the tweaks would define a significantly different linguistic orthography, then a new subtag would be warranted.
I don't see how this is different from German spelling reforms.
To my mind, XXXXulst is better than something like robinson, if ulster is considered to broad.
By the way, Peter, you did not answer my original question:
On 27 Mar 2010, at 06:58, Peter Constable wrote:
> Is this only for the orthography, or also for the dialect ("Ullans")?
Please explain what you mean more fully. I gather you are looking for a specific sort of answer, as the question seems to imply tacit assumptions on your part.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages