Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Sun Dec 18 15:39:36 CET 2016

I agree that we don't want some kind of one-off mechanism. There are many
instances of different combinations in active use: Hinglish, for example.

However, I don't think it is too far afield to use the -t- mechanism. For
example, I think for some suitable identifier XXX, the tag "es-t-en-m0-XXX"
could represent a variant of es that incorporates elements of en.

The question is what would be best for -XXX. Some thoughts:

-fusion (broad, neutral term)
-portmant (for portmanteau)
-codeswit (for code-switching)
-digloss (for diglossia, probably a stretch)


On Dec 18, 2016 05:06, "Doug Ewell" <doug at> wrote:

Mats Blakstad wrote:

We do have the subtag 'mul' (Multiple languages) - would be great if
> it was possible to use that code and also specify which languages it
> contains, something like 'mul-t-en-es'

Well, not -t-. That extension is for transformations, and we aren't talking
about text that was translated, transcribed, etc. to or from English or
Spanish. We're talking about text that is partly in English and partly in

A language tag identifies a single language or language variety. The subtag
'mul', derived from the ISO 639 code element, is sort of anomalous to this
concept. Creating a new extension to expand this concept and make it easier
to indicate multiple languages in a single tag doesn't seem likely,
especially when most protocols and specifications have solved this problem
by allowing multiple language tags:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="de, fr, it">

Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list