Early Modern English
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Sun Jan 22 07:54:24 CET 2012
This nuance of this list discussions always
The section 2.2.5 of RFC5646 does not explicitly
require variant subtag to be context free or to
refer to one language only, which is also what
common sense suggests, as subtags are intended
to form a context hierarchy, and are not
supposed to be regarded out of context.
E.g., to me, the hypothetical
'academy'/'academic' subtag would make perfect
sense, and it could be further precised with
year subtag, and would (or could) already have
context (region) set. So, '-academic-1959'
instead of '-1959acad', and now
'-academic-2010', too (in the Belarusian case
mentioned by you).
The 'tudor' refers to the period, and sort of
makes sense, from the same point of view, but
not from the 'the subtag must be context free'
POV. Likewise, the 'earlymod', which too might
be used for another language's Early Modern variant.
On 01/21/2012 11:36 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I don't understand how having a single subtag
> for Early Modern English
> and for Tudor Cornish, even if they do span
> approximately the same
> historical period, is consistent with this
> list's (very well, YOUR)
> objections to similar subtags over the years. We
> don't have 'western'
> and 'academic', and probably won't have
> 'earlymod', because you've
> argued successfully that they could be
> misappropriated for languages
> other than Western Armenian and Academic
> Belarusian and Early Modern
> My "problem" is that I don't see how English and
> Cornish are similar
> enough for their respective "Tudor" variants to
> be taggable by a single
> subtag, any more than "Western This" and
> "Western That" could be. (One
> language is Germanic, the other Celtic.) To me,
> this is a built-in
> misappropriation. In this I differ with you, and
> with Mark Davis.
More information about the Ietf-languages