Proposed general model for Serbo-Croatian continuum

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Sat Nov 23 20:32:51 CET 2013


Michael Everson everson at
Fri Nov 22 11:59:43 CET 2013

> On 22 Nov 2013, at 01:59, Doug Ewell <doug_> wrote:

> . . .  

>> The only thing "all" would accomplish for >> these new variant records is to add unneeded >> redundancy.

> Oh, you don’t like the evident redundancy. > (By the way, there’s also Glag.)
Church Slavonic writen in [Glag] does not have variants, is not written to show distinct reflexes?
Somehow I take it these variants are never relevant to Church Slavonic, written in [Glag], and that this is a reason for specifying the script subtags to be used in the prefixes for these.

(Sorry to be confused.)


--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at 
> Michael Everson *

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

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list