> From: Randy Presuhn > > I suggested just having those dialects that have names in the general > > lexicon of speakers of the host language. Specific needs can continue > > to be catered for by individual requests. > > A couple of obstacles exist to using this kind of approach: > > (1) there are *lots* of languages out there... > (2) the names and distinctions observed in the general lexicon of > the speakers of a host language are at best only a starting > point... +1 on both points. Even if there weren't lots of languages, there is no one convention for tiling the plane of dialects. (It's hard enough to agree on tiling the plane of languages.) With some many individual axes of variation, dialect variation in the wild can sometimes amount to idiolects as points in a nearly-continuous field. There's no need for dialect sub-tags unless there is a conventionally-recognized distinction that is a useful distinction to make in language resources. Again, I think the best approach is to register those on a case-by-case basis as needs are identified. Peter _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.