Subject: RE: [Ltru] extlang again (was: [psg.com #1011] add suppress-region)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:13:34 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Frank Ellermann

> The fuss is that *("-" extlang) was discussed quite often,
> but I never got the idea that it's _redundant_ info.

Clarification: the extlang subtag would *not* be redundant info; when an
extlang subtag is used (assuming the ideas that have been exchanged re
how we would implement this in 3066ter) then the *lang* subtag is
redundant info. For instance, "shu" is a specific variety encompassed by
"ar", hence it implies "ar"; so in "ar-shu", the "ar" is redundant.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:03:22 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:

> the *lang* subtag is redundant info. For instance, "shu"
> is a specific variety encompassed by "ar", hence it implies
> "ar"; so in "ar-shu", the "ar" is redundant.

Yes, so far it's clear.  What I don't see is a convincing
reason for multiple levels of redudancy.  From an academical
POV this is probably fascinating, but is it also important
in practice ?

When I want tomatoes for cooking, I'm really not interested
in potatoes.  In recipes I wouldn't want to "tag" this as
sol-tom and sol-pot, and I'm not tempted to match them with
banewort.

Either they are variants or they are different.  To get this
right is probably a PITA, but attempts to do both at the same
time IMHO don't belong in billions of tags in the real world.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:17:25 -0400

> POV this is probably fascinating, but is it also important

It's as important as backward compatibility is.

> sol-tom and sol-pot, and I'm not tempted to match them with

_Cannabis indica_ and _Cannabis sativa_ are separate species, but they'll
both get you high; for that purpose they are the same.

> Either they are variants or they are different.  

Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case.  Standard Arabic
and Egyptian Arabic definitely aren't mere variants of one another,
but there is a definite sense in which they are both Arabic which is
not a mere family resemblance.

-- 
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                [email-masked]
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.  --William Blake      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:00:33 +0200

> It's as important as backward compatibility is.

At the moment the worst we have is lng-cc-variant.  To be
somewhat compatible with this scheme I understand "ar-shu
belongs to ar".  But I don't undertstand _further_ levels.

"Old" (= all) applications only know ar, not hypothetical
subdivisions ar-shu-sha and ar-shu-shb below ar-shu.

> _Cannabis indica_ and _Cannabis sativa_ are separate
> species, but they'll both get you high; for that purpose
> they are the same.

For a hemp rope I don't care about the THC, and I wouldn't
try to use olibanum for ropes.  Classifications are a can
of worms.

> Standard Arabic and Egyptian Arabic definitely aren't mere
> variants of one another, but there is a definite sense in
> which they are both Arabic

Sounds like nds and de.  Where I live all local newspapers
and radio stations have daily nds columns.  I never learned
it, but understanding it is possible (with the help of "en"
for interpolations in my case).

Both de-nds and nds are fine as far as I'm concerned, but
the idea of _more_ levels bothers me.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:13:20 -0400

> subdivisions ar-shu-sha and ar-shu-shb below ar-shu.

You are not allowing for *future* backward compatibility, as it were.
When 3066ter comes into force, and people start tagging their Chadian
Arabic corpora "ar-shu", they will not be happy with us if we say that
"ar-shu" is now discredited in favor of "ar-sha" and "ar-shb".  No, they
will say, we will reclassify our resources as you say, but we insist
that people looking for "ar-shu" content can still find it.  That's why
we want to be able to tell them to use "ar-shu-sha" and "ar-shu-shb".

> for interpolations in my case).

Under what circumstances is nds referred to simply as "Deutsch", unqualified?
That's the essence of being encompassed by a macrolanguage.

> the idea of _more_ levels bothers me.

Right now there are none, and I'm willing to bet a reasonable sum that
there never will be, based on the Ethnologue's known propensity for
fine splits.  For example, there are are already 18 indigenous West
Germanic languages in Germany (Alemannisch, Bayerisch, North and East
Frisian and Saterfrisian, Kölsch, Jenisch, Limburgisch, Letzeburgesch,
Mainfränkisch, Pfälzisch, Plautdietsch, nds under any of its various
names, Upper Saxon, Schwäbisch, Westfälisch, Western Yiddish, and
of course Standard German), plus eight others (Danish, Polish, Upper
and Lower Sorbian, three kinds of Romani, and German Sign Language).
None of these are languages encompassed by a macrolanguage.  There are
also some 44 immigrant languages listed, some of which are so encompassed.

So as Peter says, let's limit it to five extlangs and move on.

-- 
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme):  [email-masked]
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically   http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time.     --robison who's at texas dot net