Pending requests

[Mark Davis ☕️]

I like this approach, for the reason you mention.

Mark

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
wrote:

>
> Den 2015-11-25 21:01, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>:
>
> > Shawn Steele wrote:
> ...
> > and Mark Davis wrote:
>
> >> ​I disagree with "basiceng". What people need is a variant to indicate
> >> a simplified version of a language. That is not satisfied by
> >> "Basic English", which nobody has a demonstrated need for.
>
> > "Basic Foo" and "Simple Foo" are not the same thing,
>
> Perhaps...
>
> > and without
> > being able to read his mind, I suspect one reason Michael proposed both
> > might be to draw attention to that fact.
>
> Like confusing everyone that does not have English as native language,
> or have never heard of **Ogden's** Basic English before...
>
> I'm indifferent as to whether one should add a variant subtag for "Ogden
> Basic
> English", but if added, the subtag must *not* be "basiceng", as that would
> certainly be interpreted as some/any kind of "simplified English". "ogden",
> "ogdeneng" would be fine.
>
> -------
>
> Ok, I've mentioned it before, but here it is again:
>
> I generally agree with Shawn and Mark here.
>
> BUT, I would prefer a scheme based on CEFR
> (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#Common_reference_levels
> ,
> http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf).
>
> The A levels are, however, so basic that it is hard to give any new
> information
> (like in a Wikipedia article or a news article/podcast/etc). So for the
> purpose
> of "simplified language tagging" the A levels could be skipped (IMO).
>
> The C2 level, IIUC, isn't quite like "advanced native speaker", but close.
>
> So, instead of "-simple" or "-basic", something along the lines of:
>
>     -levelB1
>     -levelB2
>     -levelC1
>     -levelC2
>
> (referring to the CEFR levels) would be my preference. No prefixes listed,
> i.e.
> these variant subtags should be recommendably applicable to any language.
>
> Thus nobody (or 'no body') "controlling" the simplification, no particular
> dictionary
> or similar, as that would defy applicability to most languages.
>
> True, the descriptions of the levels may be a bit hand-waving, but that is
> the
> very thing that makes them applicable to any language.
>
> As always, it is the tagger's responsibility to see to that "level" tag
> sufficiently well
> corresponds to the CEFR level of the content (for a reader/listener
> interested in the
> subject of the content).
>
> There are other schemes
> (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#General_scales
> ),
> but they seem much harder to use (just for the level naming alone).
>
> /Kent K
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20151126/0e388c7e/attachment.html>