Proposed general model for Serbo-Croatian continuum
CE Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 23 20:32:51 CET 2013
Hi.
Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Fri Nov 22 11:59:43 CET 2013
> On 22 Nov 2013, at 01:59, Doug Ewell <doug_ at_ewellic.org> 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.)
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20131123/f294b47d/attachment.html>
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list