Early Modern English

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Jan 16 11:53:16 CET 2012

On 16 Jan 2012, at 10:39, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> Doug Ewell wrote:
>> I do think 'tudor' beateth, sorry, beats the hell out of '1611kjv' or
>> '1623shak' or '1590spen', all of which would seem even more limiting.
> There will more likely be misuse of "en-tudor", with people thinking it only applies to the Tudor period, than there will of misappropriations of "-earlymod".

There will more likely be misuse of "-earlymod", with people thinking the subtag applies to any language, than there will of mistaking of "en-tudor" of excluding English spoken in the Stuart period.

> Remember, people will be seeing "en-tudor" used in source and copying and pasting, coming to their own conclusions about what it means.

But only people interested in English and maybe Cornish will be interested in that, whereas "earlymod" invites a free-for-all for scores of languages.

> Other suggestions, then:
> en-tustu (Tudor and Stuart)
> en-16c17c (16th and 17th centuries)
> en-16th17th (16th and 17th centuries)
> en-1603lon (after 1603 London as a focal point)
> en-c1603 (Circa 1603)
> en-eamoe (EModE, genericised)
> en-nashe (after Thomas Nashe)
> Choosing 1603 because it contains both Tudor and Stuart rule. I'd appreciate somebody to rate these, even if it's just "they're all terrible". Most of them still suffer from the "too limited" problem,
> but not as badly.

"c1603" is one year out of 180, while the 118 years of "tudor" is 65% of the 180.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list