Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Tue Jan 3 08:52:33 CET 2017

Also, John raises a concern about being able to express transformations
into code-switch languages. I added a comment with a reformulation to
address that:

As to John's concern in comment:1
<> about being able to
have a transformation of a code-switch language: I think that is a far less
less important requirement than to have a general mechanism for code-switch

However, I think we can accommodate that — and at the same time alleviate
some of people's concerns about the terms 'source' and 'target' — by
changing the syntax so that the *value* of the c0 key is the language that
is mixed into the main language tag. We then get tags structured as follows:
es-t-*c0-en* Spanglish Spanish with an admixture of English
en-t-*c0-es* Spanglish English with an admixture of Spanish

*Note: the boundary between these two will be rather fuzzy, like most cases
with languages. Probably best for these to recommend that es-t-c0-en be
used unless English clearly predominates.*

One could then have
es-t-hi-*c0-en* Spanglish translated from Hindi

Although it would be again quite infrequently used, we can easily allow for
the case of a code-switch language being the source, and even have the
translation of one code-switch language into another. We do this by using
another keyword, much has we have done with the transliteration s0 and d0
keys. So we define c1 as a language that is mixed into the source language
for -t-, allowing formulations like
es-t-hi-*c0-en*-*c1-en* Spanglish translated from Hinglish

The more I think about it, the more I like this formulation.


On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at> wrote:

> -u- is syntacticly unsuitable, as well as being a worse fit semantically.
> You can use es-t-en-c0 or es-t-en-gb-c0. You can't use es-u-en-c0, or
> es-u-en-gb-c0 because any two letter subtag is a reserved keyword.
> I was not arguing in favor of using -u- extension for code-switch
> languages, just saying that it /is/ a broad mechanism.
> Mark
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison at>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The much
>> > > more general mechanism is the U one, which by now has a variety of
>> > > different settings.
>> >
>> > Ah, yes, forgot about that. I think it would be much better then to use
>> the U
>> > extension.
>> >
>> The U extension is for Locale information. I don't think that fits any
>> better. If anything, it's a worse fit.
>> Addison
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list