Early Modern English

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 17 14:17:49 CET 2012

Hi.  I did not rank the whole list of possible subtags, but I did indicate which few I liked.  You may not agree but I personally hope we do not choose [tustu].

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)
Not my personal preference.

>> en-16c17c (16th and 17th centuries)
These might be o.k. but I note you rejected using century labels (16esiecle, 17esiecle) for French -- and I do believe that for French 16th century is pretty much one variety though changing and most of the 17th century delineates another variety (though it's still another variety, modern French alas, that's spoken at the very end of the 17th century), and so these terms are used a lot to designate these varieties of French, much more than they would be used to designate English.
>> en-16th17th (16th and 17th centuries)
>> en-1603lon (after 1603 London as a focal point)
>> en-c1603 (Circa 1603)

I personally like c1603.
I do not see how c (circa obviously) ties the language to a specific date; all it does is say that this is a central date that is especially representative of the variety.

Other subtags I like a lot include [earlymod] -- which I saw few problems with, it's not ancien anything but "early modern' and so I don't think of it as a possible French variety. 

And I do not object to [tudor] either.

>> en-eamoe (EModE, genericised)
Again, not my personal preference.

>> en-nashe (after Thomas Nashe)
Not my personal preference either.

Oh well.  Suit yourselves.  


--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
>> 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20120117/c89db845/attachment.html>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list