Registration request for new subtag

Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Nov 21 18:35:04 CET 2013

Thanks. That’s very helpful.

English speakers benefit from using common orthographic and spelling conventions (for the most part) that reflect etymology much more than current pronunciation – for which reason a literate person from Alabama or Alberta has little difficulty reading an article written by someone in Aberdeen or Australia. Language varieties have greater long-term viability when they share orthography / spelling than when they adopt locally-phonemic orthographies/spellings.

That said, you evidently have a need to publish content in distinct forms. It sounds like the sociolinguistics could (hypothetically) have easily swung toward distinct language identities, but that the sociolinguistic reality might be best characterized as one language and, hence, that you need to have language tags for a single language with two variant subtags.


From: Mats Blakstad [mailto:mats.gbproject at]
Sent: November 21, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Michael Everson; ietf-languages at
Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtag

From my collaborator again:

"With regards to the orthographic, there is only a writing system which can be used to write any dialect of the Capeverdean Creole - It was formerly called ALUPEC (Alfabeto Unificado para a Escrita do Caboverdiano - "Unified Alphabet for Writing the Capeverdean Language). Now it is officially called Alfabeto Caboverdiano - "Capeverdean Alphabet".

The main difference between the two macro-dialect is the phonological realm - mainly the syllabic structure - while in Sotavento´s group the main structure is CVC, in Barlavento´s group there can be complex onset and coda. For instant in my dialect, there can be an onset of up to 4 consonants.

E.g in the word "Disgrasadu" in Santiago, the same word will appear as dzgrasôd in the Island of São Nicolau, which is in the Barlavanto´s group. There is an opened debate in terms of how to write like "dzgrasôd". Some scholars propose there should a mute [e] after [d] in order to maintain the same syllabic structure in both dialects. But I do not agree with this proposal.

So as you can see the issue is more complicated than one can imagine - the two dialect groups are considered one language just because of political and other reasons which you clearly pointed out in previous e-mails.

As for the terms, they are Barlavento and Sotavento, that is, ending in [o] - their native terms used by the Portuguese, so it is good to keep them in their Portuguese form.

In terms of lexical, there are some differences, but it does not pose a problem.

There are no attested morphological or relevant syntactic differences between the two dialects. These are ares yet to be studied.

Just pointing out again - the orthographic differences are not due to different writing systems, but because of the syllabic structure differences between the two dialects. And the orthographic system is not based neither meant only for the Santiago dialect. This a myth that has been created since most of the studies done in Capeverdean Creole centers mainly on the Santiago dialect. There few studies for other dialects. It is now that they are being studied. For instance, my dialect (Island of São Nicolau), apart form my MA Dissertation (2012) the only existing study is from 1980. There are other dialects that have never been studied."

2013/11/17 Peter Constable <petercon at<mailto:petercon at>>
Thanks. This is useful.

It would help if you could also say something about the nature of the differences needed for the two translations you are doing. E.g., are there orthographic differences? Limited lexical changes? Extensive lexical changes? Minor / extensive changes in inflectional morphology?


From: Mats Blakstad [mailto:mats.gbproject at<mailto:mats.gbproject at>]
Sent: November 16, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Michael Everson; ietf-languages at<mailto:ietf-languages at>

Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtag

In general you raise an interesting debate. What makes something "just a dialect" and when can we consider it as a different language? This questions is not only about mutual intelligibility, but also about history and identity.

For orthography, many languages have ISO 639 code without having their own standard orthography, and it should be possible to register a variant code without having a standard orthography for it. We translated our project into Barlavente dialect as a gesture for people living in the Barlavente Islands. The main point is that we need to be able to have a tag to separate these two translations from each other (the alternative is that we make our own). If it should be variant code or language code is hard to answer - Do you have guidelines for this difference? It would make it easier to find out. Personally I think that this difference is not always that easy to make, there can be several borderline cases.

I wrote to my collaborator in Cabo Verde, Francisco Lopes, that is a native Barlavente speaker and have studies the Sotavento dialect for more than 18 years, and he wrote this:

"In fact the Capeverdean language, just as any language in the world has its dialects. There are 9 inhabited islands, and each Island has its own dialect. A part from the Island dialects, there two macro-dialects which are: the Sotavento Dialects for the Islands in southern region of the country (Islands of Maio, Santiago, Fogo and Brava); and the Barlavento dialect for the islands of the Northern region of the country (Islands of Santo Antão, São Vicente, São Nicolau, Sal and Boa Vista).

So both the Sotavento and the Barlavento dialects have sub-dialects. They are not two different languages at all. So I will advice a sub-code, just as you mentioned in your e-mail. This is the trend linguist authorities in the country is following - I was recently in Cape Verde, and October 19th, I attended a seminary promoted by the President of the Cape Verde, and Phd Manuel Veiga. And this very issue was discussed - in the process of trying to make Capeverdean Language as one of the official languages of the country, the idea is to use what they called The Barlavento branch (having the islands of São Vicente as the reference dialect), and the Sotavento branch  (having the islands of Santiago as the reference dialect).

So it will be a great mistake, as for now to consider the two dialects as two different languages"

So for me it seems clear that we only need a variant tag for this.

2013/11/16 Peter Constable <petercon at<mailto:petercon at>>
Not being an expert in these varieties, I have no strong reason to believe that "dialect" wouldn't be correct. But there have been statements that do call this into question:

- The registration request has the statement, "There is low mutual intelligibility between the dialects."
- Mats indicated that content will have to be translated separately for two varieties.
- Ethnologue indicates that there is a standard orthography for Kabuverdianu. That suggests that the distinctions in question are not orthographic alone, and that at least one or the other may not be the same language as that assumed in "standard" literature.

Those statements, make me a bit inclined to take as the null hypothesis that these are separate languages and ask for explanation as to why that should not be the case. I'm reminded that just a few years ago the ISO 639 JAC had to deal with splitting off Latgalian from Latvian. This was actually non-trivial. If this current case later becomes like the Latgalian case, with a request to split off another language from Kabuverdianu, then having that happen some years down the road after variant subtags are registered will make things far more complicated than figuring it out right from the outset. I realize that Mats may be looking to get a tag now, but doing it wrong might result in much greater costs later.

Hence the questions I'm raising. I'm not completely satisfied simply because you're satisfied. I think it prudent to get more clarification on this situation before we rush in headlong.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at>] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: November 15, 2013 1:42 PM
To: ietf-languages at<mailto:ietf-languages at>
Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtag

On 14 Nov 2013, at 17:44, Peter Constable <petercon at<mailto:petercon at>> wrote:

> If there is low mutual intelligibility between the varieties, that raises the question as to whether they should, instead, be considered distinct, individual languages - in which case separate ISO 639-3 IDs would be more appropriate than a variant subtag.

I'm satisfied that "dialect" is appropriate. I also would not want Mats and his colleagues to have to wait for ISO 639-3 to process their request.

Michael Everson *

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at<mailto:Ietf-languages at>
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at<mailto:Ietf-languages at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list