request for subtag for Elfdalian
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sat Feb 6 04:05:53 CET 2016
Kent Karlsson scripsit:
> Note again that **all** variants of Old Norse are closely related
> to (modern) Icelandic, and *distantly* related to the modern Swedish/
You're confusing relatedness with similarity. Lungfish are similar to
other fish and not to cows, but they are more closely related to cows.
Italian is much more like Spanish than like French, but it is more closely
related to French. Frisian's nearest relative is English, but the most
similar language to it is Dutch.
> In summary, that "Old Norse split into Old East Norse and Old West Norse"
> "is neither here nor there" (all of them are essentially Icelandic, and
> the split is minor and NOT at all related to any of the modern divides),
It is, though. Nynorsk, like Icelandic, is egkavian, whereas Danish/Bokmaal
and Swedish are jegkavian.
> Now, I'm not happy about the naming "Elfdalian". "Elvdalian" is a
> better anglification (Ä is very close to E, but not close to A).
The fact is that English uses the old Latin names of the provinces
and their subdivisions rather than the Swedish names. It is not
a question of a new transcription into English, but the use of
traditional English names.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
"Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram
that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
as any, even sans digital signature." --me
More information about the Ietf-languages