Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.
Anthony Aristar aristar at linguistlist.org 
Tue Jun 7 15:49:40 CEST 2011 
> A question... Since Unified Kichwa is not just an orthography but represents a unified grammar as well, isn't a language code more 
> appropriate than a sub tag?


> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:36 AM, mailler at phare.normalesup.org wrote:

>> The list of the individual language covered (ISO 639-3 codes) is the
>> following :
>> qud, qxr, qug, qvi, qvj, qvz, qxl, quw.
>> I think the most logical is to use the "qu" prefix since the Unified
>> Kichwa does not adress all these dialects individually (the reference
>> grammar book does not make a difference between dialects).

 
I tend to agree with Anthony that if Sylvain Mailler is eliminating all other dialects except the macro-language from consideration . . . and if differences include grammar then he perhaps needs a language code, if his variety meets the criteria for a language (separate literature, identity, etc.); qu should be listed at the macrolanguage.  So +1 for Anthony's suggestion.
 
Best,
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110607/4b7cba71/attachment.html>