Registration request for new subtag

Doug Ewell doug at
Tue Sep 23 19:29:53 CEST 2014

HMRD Cesidio Tallini <ct at 5world dot net> wrote:

> Not all of the words in the UMMOA English lexicon are necessarily
> UMMOA English words strictly speaking, and have been added to the list
> because, like with any real world dictionary, they are words that are
> frequently used, that have some daily or weekly currency.

So the list of words that purport to differentiate "UMMOA English" from
English is actually shorter than this.

> I have not bothered with words that are never or almost never used.

That seems reasonable.

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

Specialized jargons exist in all walks of life, from finance to gambling
to law to art. The verb "organize" has a unique and specific meaning
("to form a union") in the field of labor. The verb "demo" has two
dramatically different meanings, depending on whether the context is
marketing or construction. "Down" and "out" are nouns with specific
meanings in American sports. And so on. These specialized vocabularies
are part of the English language; using them does not cause the text to
become "not English" or to be in some unique dialect of English.

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


> are actually new words, or the words imply things or meanings which
> cannot be found in either your standard Chambers or Websters
> dictionary, or in the Wikipedia.

Well, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so I wouldn't expect to find newly
coined words there. But you're right: there are certainly several new
words, and several existing words with a meaning specific to UMMOA,
exactly like "organize" and "demo" above. English text that uses these
terms is still English text, even if inside knowledge is required to
fully understand the jargon.

> Besides all these things, which you can only fully understand if you
> use things like the Cesidian calendar daily (some non-Ummoagians and
> non-Cesidians also use it), or if you are a Ummoagian, or a Cesidian,
> I would appreciate less criticism for the sake of criticism alone
> (besides being non-constructive, these kinds of criticism are also
> full of ad homines), and a little more help, if that is possible.

I'm sorry if you felt my arguments were made for the sake of criticism
alone. I thought I had presented adequate factual material to back them

But having said that, if you are going to publish a lexicon that
includes your name along with 16 other terms derived from your name, and
claim to have founded your own philosophical school of thought and named
it after yourself, you can hardly be surprised if discussion about this
proposal tends to gravitate toward you personally.

> 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), since they don't have months of
> Archimedes, named after a real Greek God, but months of January, named
> after a (phoney) god called "Janus", nor do Brits usually have the
> foggiest idea of what a real world diaxenospitia is.

If jargon and terminology are the only salient differences between
British English and "UMMOA English," then this is British English with
jargon and terminological differences.

> Moreover, UMMOA English doesn't use the orthography of American
> English (en-US) either,

I assume you truly mean that certain conventions of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, etc. are different. Major departures in
orthography, such as fonetik speliŋ, might possibly justify a variant.
Examples of running text would have been helpful here.

> It would be nice if some new kind of classification (language code)
> can be developed, regardless of whether it uses 3 letters or 5. I'm
> just looking for something a little more authoritative than a private
> language subtag.
> If that is possible.

If and when BCP 47 is revised, the driving force will almost certainly
not be to create a new type of subtag (in addition to language, extlang,
script, region, variant, extension, and private-use) just to handle
jargon. Either jargon is so pervasive and so unfamiliar that it severely
hinders communication, as in Boontling, in which case a variant may be
registered, or it is not.

The decision is ultimately up to the Reviewer, Michael Everson. But for
my money, I have not seen evidence of a "taggable distinction" (BCP 47
has its own jargon too!) that justifies a new subtag.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | @DougEwell

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list