Registration request for new subtag

HMRD Cesidio Tallini ct at
Tue Sep 23 22:55:36 CEST 2014

To John Cowan:

The UMMOA has rejected the (wholesale) en-GB regional variety of English
recently, since banksters (those who think private profit is fine, but also
socialised losses, and that is capricious logic at best) are beginning to
limit our ability to speak, and this after they have taken away most of our
wealth, so the UMMOA will no longer use the en-GB variety acritically.

Here is the historical reference to when the UMMOA began to distance itself
from wholesale use of the en-GB, and this, I believe, is only one of the
reasons why we propose (and more than propose) a new regional variety of
English (if it can be called "variant", that would be fine, as we do not
live in any specific region other than *Terra Firma*):

The UMMOA has rejected the en-GB-oed as well. Here is a reference to the
"OED", compared with other English orthographies:

The en-GB-oed is not really a regional variety of English, but an attempt
(failed, in my view) to design a global form of English. In fact, it is
preferred by the United Nations, and the banksters that absolutely love
them. The en-GB-oed is a variant of English which is sufficiently polite to
those who prefer the en-US regional variety, and the UMMOA has rejected
this variety from the very beginning, so I will not try the OED, or your

I hope that if "King Michael I" (I imagine that this is the "Michael
Everson" that Doug Ewell mentions, but I do not really know for sure) has
vetoed our UMMOA English request wholesale, that he will express that
decision/resolution himself, and take responsibility for it, like real
monarchs do (and unlike presidents).

To Doug Ewell:

UMMOA English is more than just specialised jargon, since the new terms are
more than just political in nature. UMMOA English also has new religious
terms, like *merodepantheism*; new geographic terms, like *Winnecomaq*; new
days of the week, months of the year (a new calendar form altogether); new
religious sacraments that are not Catholic (but should have been), etc. I
thus believe that UMMOA English is more that just a new field of human
endeavour, and encompasses the life of a global nation and society that is
highly tolerant even linguistically, and non-capitalistic/non-imperialistic
in its values. These intolerant, capitalistic, and imperialistic values are
the *ne plus ultra* of any modern regional variety of English currently
classified in any authoritative manner, so not only is UMMOA English
different, and sufficiently different to deserve to be defined with a new
English variant subtag, at the very least, but it is also the English form
of people with different values than the ones that are currently popular
(but with the global elites only, as few people realise, acknowledge,
and/or are willing to challenge/change).

If you wish to arbitrarily attack me for using my name in some of my
cultural creations, then I suppose that everyone should be attacked for
using theirs, but that isn't really a legitimate argument, or justification
for anything, as I have the right to use my name, and people in democratic
and/or tolerant societies don't usually lose that right before you, or
anyone else, so I believe that the problem with UMMOA English is less
strictly a linguistic problem, and more a problem of *very different values*,
perhaps even a *different value system*, as my value system is not an
imposed one, by some monarch, president, or New World Order, while the
values of most peoples are nothing but imposed values, having thus no real
scientific, philosophical, or ethical rationale of their own, since whether
these values are right or wrong was never questioned to begin with (another
word for that: dogma).

Again, I will accept Michael Everson's decision, when I actually read it,
but not capricious arguments that seem to place your values, or value
system, somehow above my own. Ultimately language is a reflection also of
human values, and the distinct human values comprising the global UMMOA
population deserve to be preserved with at least an English variant subtag,
I believe. I don't know if the comprehensive tag should be *en-gv*,
*en-ugv*, or *en-ummoa*. If any of these are rational and acceptable in any
way, I will welcome them. The UMMOA is more than "two letters on the
Internet", as *one of my previous articles
<>* stated, even proved in some
ways, so the UMMOA is not trying to be a state or country, and thus aping
any other inferior state or country, because in reality the UMMOA is a
*continent* already, albeit a very scattered and tiny continent.

Should the IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group?), and/or Michael
Everson see things differently, then I will simply continue to develop
UMMOA English regardless, because current English forms are *dinosaurs*
anyway (you don't have to believe what I say, but I know I am right,
because the whole world, you see, is decaying/dying, and in many different
ways). Current English forms are the work of aping simians, not the
by-product of (rebellious) children of God.

Adam was indeed a child of God, not an ape who would not question the
"authority" of the other apparent ape with a big stick. Adam did not back
off even from God Almighty himself, in a small way, and he did not back off
even when his name was Jacob or Israel. The name "Israel", in fact, means
"he struggles with God"!

The story continues, even to this date, whether you realise it or not. Adam
shall never cease to be human, a miniature God.

Kind regards,

HMRD Cesidio Tallini

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at> wrote:

> 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?),
> Sure.
> > 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
> up.
> 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

HMRD Cesidio Tallini
11 Press Street
South Floral Park, NY 11001-3536
Email: ct at
Tel: +1 (516) 515-0592
Fax: +1 (516) 706-0080
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list