Applying for a common Moroccan Amazigh subtag

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org 
Tue Jan 4 17:05:59 CET 2011 
> Patrick Andries scripsit:
>> [PA] Well, that is really the question.  Any disadvantage of choosing a  
>> macrolanguage over a new language code? Which is easier to get? Which is  
>> preferred by software implementors?
> On reflection, I think that I was wrong to propose a macrolanguage at
> this stage, and that this is really a new language analogous to Standard
> German.  If it succeeds, it will then be time to talk of a macrolanguage
> that encompasses the new standard as well as the existing languages,
> as 'ar' encompasses both Standard Arabic and the colloquials, and 'zh'
> encompasses both Mandarin and the other Sinitic languages.
+ 1 to this -- I would think that standardized Amazigh would be a language, not a macro-language, that is it would not subsume other languages.
 
John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org 
Tue Jan 4 16:39:11 CET 2011 

> Richard BUDELBERGER scripsit:
>> « mcm », « Moroccan Common Mazigh », et « f-n-gh », « ti-finagh ».
> Alas, mcm = Moloccan Creole Portuguese, and as for 'Tfng', that's already
> standardized.
> The easiest way to find out whether a tag is available or not is to put it
> for xxx in the URL http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=xxx .
> If you get back the message "xxx is not a language code used in the
> Ethnologue, 16th edition, nor is it a valid ISO 639-3 code", then the
> tag is truly free.
According to both R. Ishida's utility and the search tool at ethnologue both [zgh] and [azh] and are available.  (Correct me if [azh] is not available.)
(I suppose there is no reason however to also search in R. Ishida's utility -- which provides information about existing subtags but not about all language codes; not all ethnologue codes become language subtag codes, and not quite every code that is indexed in ethnologue's search utility is indexed in Richard Ishida's language subtag utility; see http://people.w3.org/rishida/utils/subtags/). 

One quick question:  will codes such as standardized Amazigh that are related to collection codes ever be mapped to the related code?  That is, could a code such as [zgh] if it were registered ever be mapped to [ber] the way language codes are mapped to macro-languages in iso 639-3 (for example [arb] is mapped to [ar])?  (Sorry to ask a dumb question.)

Thanks.
Best wishes,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110104/d710c424/attachment-0001.html>