Serbo-Croatian continuum: the top level
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Mon Mar 3 18:31:32 CET 2014
Michael Everson scripsit:
> So? If a text is in Kajkavian, then the subtag will apply. Otherwise
> it will not.
The point is that Kajkavian is spoken in Croatia, but that does not make
it a variety of Standard Croatian, any more than Occitan is a variety
of Standard French. The _Abstand_ is substantial. Note that we do not
tag fr-occitan, much less fr-breton: we treat them as separate languages
as they deserve to be.
> Why do we have to “do” anything about “neo-Shtokavian”?
You wanted a comprehensive tagging scheme for the SCC. Neo-Shtokavian is
the most widely spoken variety of it. Not all those who speak neo-Shto.,
speak the standard languages.
> Why would this be tempting? If we registered a three-letter code,
> the RA could assign those three letters to something else later.
We would assign a 5-to-8 letter subtag, as we are permitted to do
if the RA has refused to assign a 3-letter subtag.
> This brings to mind another question though. Do we have the power to
> create our own primary script tags?
> > The worst case is that we need five tags, for Kajkavian, Chakavian,
> > neo-Shtokavian, palaeo-Shtokavian, and Torlakian.
> Why do we need five?
That's how many top-level varieties of the SCC there are. Or at any
rate there are no more than that.
> Where is [the distinction between neo- and palaeo-Shtokavian]
> written up?
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtokavian_dialect> and the
references attached there.
XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan
Entity parser dot-com cowan at ccil.org
Abstract schemata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
More information about the Ietf-languages