[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example



Phillips, Addison 2008-05-29 17.46:

>> I'm one of apparently few people who truly believe the ISO
>> 639-3/RA definition of "macrolanguage," and don't think of it
>> as some kind of cover story.
> 
> Since we have the direct testimony of the folks who conceived
> of macrolanguage, I don't see any reason why anyone would
> believe otherwise. What we have been debating is whether the
> Macrolanguage concept is of use in the structure of "our"
> language tags, and, if so, how (rather than the reverse).


Those in favour of extlang seem to consider the Macrolanguage 
information generally relevant, while the other group is more 
sceptical about how relevant that information is.

> One of the problems macrolanguage brings us is that it is *not*
> just a "cover story": ISO 639-3 made an honest effort to 
> catalog all macrolanguages, not just the ones that are useful 
> to us. As a result, we have Norwegian, Serbo-Croatian, and some
>  others that do not play well with extlangs (and we have other 
> languages, such as 'zh', that complicate life without extlang).


Regarding "useful": The From ltru-bounces at ietf.org  Thu May 29 12:14:46 2008
Return-Path: <ltru-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4760D3A696A;
	Thu, 29 May 2008 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85A33A6895
	for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.459
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.141, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 1w60q62VWGWd for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 29 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakepoint.domeneshop.no (lakepoint.domeneshop.no
	[194.63.248.54])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B233A6814
	for <ltru at ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 12:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 10013.local (cm-84.208.108.246.getinternet.no [84.208.108.246])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by lakepoint.domeneshop.no (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4TJEcpK007013;
	Thu, 29 May 2008 21:14:38 +0200
Message-ID: <483F009E.6040903 at malform.no>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 21:14:38 +0200
From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1b1) Gecko/20060724 Thunderbird/2.0a1 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>
References: <mailman.636.1211925384.15310.ltru at ietf.org>	<004d01c8c065$838b8d50$e6f5e547 at DGBP7M81>	<008001c8c105$cc421820$64c64860$ at net>	<001501c8c121$646ebe80$e6f5e547 at DGBP7M81>	<483E14ED.6030100 at malform.no>	<002601c8c13e$60217e40$e6f5e547 at DGBP7M81>	<483E3D68.1080202 at malform.no>	<004901c8c155$419bf560$e6f5e547 at DGBP7M81>
	<4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C39D at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C39D at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org>, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage,
 Extlang. The Sami language situation as example
X-BeenThere: ltru at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list
	<ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org

Phillips, Addison 2008-05-29 17.46:

>> I'm one of apparently few people who truly believe the ISO
>> 639-3/RA definition of "macrolanguage," and don't think of it
>> as some kind of cover story.
> 
> Since we have the direct testimony of the folks who conceived
> of macrolanguage, I don't see any reason why anyone would
> believe otherwise. What we have been debating is whether the
> Macrolanguage concept is of use in the structure of "our"
> language tags, and, if so, how (rather than the reverse).


Those in favour of extlang seem to consider the Macrolanguage 
information generally relevant, while the other group is more 
sceptical about how relevant that information is.

> One of the problems macrolanguage brings us is that it is *not*
> just a "cover story": ISO 639-3 made an honest effort to 
> catalog all macrolanguages, not just the ones that are useful 
> to us. As a result, we have Norwegian, Serbo-Croatian, and some
>  others that do not play well with extlangs (and we have other 
> languages, such as 'zh', that complicate life without extlang).


Regarding "useful": The entire mentire macrolanguage catalog is useful, 
not only that part which encompasses languages which can be tagged 
with extlang. The RFC must give advice for both groups of 
macrolanguages.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


acrolanguage catalog is useful, 
not only that part which encompasses languages which can be tagged 
with extlang. The RFC must give advice for both groups of 
macrolanguages.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.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.