Need action on 'latclass' request

[Michael Everson]

I’m rejecting the request because there is not consensus as to what it is actually reflecting or how that differs from an un-subtagged “la”. Arthur and I are on one page about the usefulness of different orthographic subtags, but the queries I had given to Andrew weren’t really answered, and likewise he didn’t respond to my notes on the imprecision of the TeX material he pointed to. Subtags for Latin might be useful but nothing is mature enough to act on.

On 11 Mar 2016, at 12:05, Arthur Reutenauer <arthur.reutenauer at normalesup.org> wrote:

>> As a publisher of Latin I would be interested in options for i/j/u/v but the scheme you propose doesn’t seem to take this into account, being defined by period (which is problematic) rather than by orthography. 
> 
>  I'm willing to submit registration forms for that.  According to your
> observations, that coincide with mine, there are three different common
> variants:
> 
> 1. Use of i for /i, j/ and u for /u, v/ throughout.
> 2. Use of i for /i, j/ and u for /u/ and v for /v/.
> 3. Use of i for /i/ and j for /j/ and u for /u/ and v for /v/.

What subtags should we use for them?  I really have no idea.

Perhaps iod/jod waw/vaw could be descriptors, or just i/j u/v with additional short descriptors for other features we have noticed, mac/brev. These would be weird looking but we have a length limit. 

I think “classical vocabulary” is out of scope, since the 1964 Alica in Terra Mirabili is thoroughly Classical in content. Apart from a few neologisms in style and grammar and syntax it is very much “classical” as opposed to “medieval” despite the date of its composition. And neo-Latin can be any style at all. 

Michael Everson