Reminder: Ulster Scots
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 31 05:35:56 CEST 2010
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
>> 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?
The key issue is that we know that the 1606 and 1694 have a pretty high level of stability; it's rather less clear what the stability of something published just recently will be.
> I don't see how this is different from German spelling reforms.
Maybe it's not. The questions are still worth asking.
> 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.
Someone else already provided an adequate reply, which was why I didn't bother, but I don't mind doing so:
You are requesting a subtag to capture a particular orthographic distinction. But there is also a dialectal distinction between Ulster Scots ("Ullans") and other Scots varieties that is going to be of interest for some users. The subtag you originally requested, "ulster", would be vague and create ambiguity between the two kinds of distinctions: one user might assume it referred to a dialectal distinction while another might assume it refers to an orthographic distinction. That could lead to problems of inconsistency in practice and issues with interoperability.
More information about the Ietf-languages