Language for taxonomic names, redux

Arthur Reutenauer arthur.reutenauer at
Sun Feb 26 12:45:06 CET 2017

> I do not agree with that radical exclusion of the taxonomy entity from
> languages. Definitely not in 'any meaning' of the 'language' term.
> It has rules for words yet non-existing, and so is assuredly beyond the
> vocabulary, which is a mere collection of existing words.

  Yes: the rules of Latin.

> Anyway, let /me/ try to say how it would work, then -- having the code, it
> will work in a way specific, pertaining to the semantics of text marked so.
> Having no code, it would not work at all.

  Even with such a genering phrasing, your statement is not true.  It’s
always possible to use a private tag to achieve whatever is desired,
provided there is an agreement among the community, and a specification
of the processes involved.  And without such a specification, even an
officially registered tag or subtag won’t help, so it is really worth to
understand the needs better since we’ve come that far in the discussion.

> W/r to points mentioned by me: historical orthographies, -- to which I
> directly refer, -- would hardly ever have rules of pronounciation worked out
> (beyond the educated guesses).

  Neither do binomal names, whose pronunciation depends on the
surrounding language.



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list