Re: [Ltru] Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

[CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>]

Hi, Kent,
Sorry my mistake; [prs] and [pes] are subsumed by the macro-language [fa].

I understand from Ethnologue that the Frisian languages are not always mutually comprehensible (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=frs), but yes,
[frr](Northern Frisian) and [frs] (Eastern Frisian) do not share a macro-language.

 
What about Occitan/Provencal (oc) and Catalan (ca)?
 
The word, 'Adeu,' is almost the same in both.
 
 
Type: language
Subtag: oc
Description: Occitan (post 1500)
Added: 2005-10-16
Type: language
Subtag: ca
Description: Catalan
Description: Valencian
Added: 2005-10-16

Suppress-Script: Latn
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90062
http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan
http://www.june29.com/HLP/lang/Catalan/webcat4.html
To me the texts in Catalan and Provencal/Occitan are mostly mutually comprehensible.
Adeu is about the same in both

According to the forums at wordreference
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=446943
they are more or less intelligible--not a written match however like [ro] and [mo] or [pes] and [prs]

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

---

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:25:52 +0100

From: kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
To: cewcathar at hotmail.com; ltru at ietf.org

> Well, no, because pes and prs already share a macrolanguage, namely fas. See http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp (as well as our own draft registry

> update).

> But I agree that the example you point at is no longer a good one. I can't really give another example (but I wonder how closely related the Frisian languages are, but

> they don't share a macrolanguage code...)

    /kent k



Den 2009-02-02 19.38, skrev "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>:

>> Addison; Are we taking substantial editorial corrections yet?  Or are we waiting for the copyright work around?
 
>> If we are taking substantial changes, I have one (I also have a few glaring typos):
 
>> http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt

>> 4.1.1 par 5, last sentence
 
{ ORIGINAL TEXT }
 
>> "For example, Romanian ('ro') and
   Moldavian ('mo') do not share a macrolanguage, but are far more
   closely related to each other than Cantonese ('yue') and Wu ('wuu') ,
   which do share a macrolanguage."

>> {! COMMENT:  the [ro] [mo] example is a bit of a problem as one of the subtags has now been deprecated; 'pes' and 'prs', Eastern (Dari) and Western Farsi, would be better examples I think}
 

>> --C. E. Whitehead
>> cewcathar at hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru