request for subtag for Elfdalian

Peter Constable petercon at
Tue Mar 1 17:18:51 CET 2016

If it's clearly wrong on a linguistic basis, then the right approach is to provide to the RA more information that makes clear that linguistic argument and shows that it's information that many linguists familiar with the languages in question — preferably not just ones within the Elfdalian community — confirm that view. 

Simply writing an "appeal" letter without providing more evidence is essentially saying, "I'm right, therefore you should do as I say." Michael knows things wouldn't work that way in this list. We shouldn't expect any different in engaging with the 639-3 RA.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Anthony Aristar
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Michael Everson <everson at>
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at>
Subject: Re: request for subtag for Elfdalian

I must admit I entirely agree with Michael.  I don't speak Swedish, but I have close relations with Swedish linguists.  And there's not a one who doesn't say that Elfdalian is about as comprehensible to them as Frisian is to Dutch.  Sociolinguistics should have nothing to do with it. The decision is clearly wrong.

Anthony Aristar

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Michael Everson <everson at> wrote:
>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Peter Constable <petercon at> wrote:
>> What the Elfdalian case has encountered is questions as to whether there is a set of criteria that apply in exactly the same way in all sociolinguistic contexts, or if there should be some adjustment in the criteria for different sociolinguistic contexts
> Sociolinguistics? Bosh. This is a matter of simple grammar. Elfdalian is not a dialect of Swedish. 
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list