Registration request for new subtag

[John Cowan]

HMRD Cesidio Tallini scripsit:

> Some words, on the other hand, appear to be normal English words,
> but instead have quite distinct meanings in Ummoagian (UMMOA national)
> context.

Many anglophone persons and organizations use words in ways specific to
themselves.  There is a story about someone coming into the administration
building of Harvard in the 1920s and asking "Is Mr. Lowell here?"  He
received the freezing reply:  "The President is not here.  He has gone
to Washington to speak to Mr. Coolidge."

> Some words, which may have been specifically designed or derived from
> foreign languages like Greek (aren't neologisms often made this way?),

They are.  English is a rich and flexible language, and any user may try
to add new words to it, or adopt them for his own purposes.  But every
such individual and organization doesn't thereby claim to be creating a new
form of English.  To do so would be to reduce language tagging to a farce.

> found in either your standard Chambers or Websters dictionary,

Try the OED.

> ambisexual (term used in en-x-UMMOA instead of bisexual, and for
> reasons of linguistic consistency),

The first quotation in the OED in this sense is from 1947.  I personally
first applied the term to myself somewhere around 1976.

> I would appreciate less criticism for the sake of criticism alone
> (besides being non-constructive,

"Constructive" in this sense means "helpful".  When a work is misconceived
or mis-executed, the most helpful criticism may well be the advice to
abandon it.  We are so advising you.

> these kinds of criticism are also full of *ad homines*),

One point for getting the accusative plural right.  Two points off for
not knowing (or pretending not to know) that the English plural of the
noun "ad hominem" is "ad hominems".

> I'm not seeking legitimacy for the United Micronations
> Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA®), since it is already
> recognised by the *United States Patent and Trademark Office
> <http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/86153190>* (USPTO) as an
> international political organisation,

It is not.  What the PTO recognizes is your right to prevent people who don't
belong to your organization from using the "UMMOA" mark as if they did belog
to it.  (It's not clear to me that the PTO acted within the letter of the
statute in granting a collective mark to an individual, but I am by no means
a trademark lawyer, and won't challenge your control of the mark.)

> I am seeking help for a language classification issue, whether you
> believe it or not, because I feel that *en-x-UMMOA* or *UMMOA English*
> is neither British English (en-GB),

Here, however, we act on evidence, not on anybody's feeling.

> nor do Brits usually have the foggiest idea of what a real world
> *diaxenospitia* is.

Nor are they generally aware of what an abannition might be; nevertheless
the OED records it as a word of the English language.

> *If that is possible.*

Alas, our political system on this list is by no means ambiarchy (a word
not in the OED, but whose definition is tolerably obvious), it is absolute
monarchy.  King Michael I has vetoed your request, and that's that.
You may in principle appeal to the IESG as explained by BCP 9, section
6.5.2 (as I make it), but no one has ever done so, never mind succeeded.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want to drive him out of town isn't
a rabbi, and a rabbi who lets them do it isn't a man.    --Jewish saying