Request of new variant subtag for kichwa (inside qu)

Anthony Aristar aristar at
Wed Jun 8 21:34:13 CEST 2011

John is absolutely right... though I think in this case even SIL would 
admit that they may have split a little too much.  I hear they intend to 
merge some of the Quechua codes as soon as someone hits them with the 
requisite bibliography.


On 6/8/2011 1:46 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Caoimhin O Donnaile scripsit:
>> The Linguistlist Composite Tree:
>> seems to divide things up less finely than does SIL.
> "Infinite are the arguments of mages."
> Here are the SIL/ISO standard criteria for defining languages:
> * Two related varieties are normally considered varieties of the same
>    language if speakers of each variety have inherent understanding of
>    the other variety at a functional level (that is, can understand based
>    on knowledge of their own variety without needing to learn the other
>    variety).
> * Where spoken intelligibility between varieties is marginal, the
>    existence of a common literature or of a common ethnolinguistic identity
>    with a central variety that both understand can be a strong indicator
>    that they should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same
>    language.
> * Where there is enough intelligibility between varieties to
>    enable communication, the existence of well-established distinct
>    ethnolinguistic identities can be a strong indicator that they should
>    nevertheless be considered to be different languages.
> I think it's uncontroversial that SIL tends to recognize more languages
> than other individuals or organizations (though specialists in
> particular languages often think their splits are not fine enough!)

Anthony Aristar, Director, Institute for Language information&
Professor of Linguistics            Moderator, LINGUIST
Linguistics Program
Dept. of English                    aristar at
Eastern Michigan University         2000 Huron River Dr, Suite 104
Ypsilanti, MI 48197



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list