Subject: Re: [Ltru] Section 2.2.2 exhaustive specification of possible prefixes

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:37:59 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> I am *not* suggesting that we add any other possible prefixes at this 
> time, but am wary of baking a limitation into the spec that might 
> somehow come back to bite us later.  The decision as to whether there 
> adequate "various historical reasons" to designate a prefix for future 
> extended language subtags is something that should, in my opinion, be 
> left to [email-masked] and the Language Subtag Reviewer.

I think Randy has a good point here.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:51:58 -0600

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:

>> The word "tag" is wrong. What they do not share is a macrolanguage. 
>> The word "tag" is given a specific meaning, which does not apply in 
>> this case.
>
> Do you know if they share a macrolanguage? You only know what is 
> registered.

A macrolanguage is what ISO 639-3 says it is.  They invented the term; 
they define the set of macrolanguages; they decide whether a 
macrolanguage is to be created or deleted or whether its roster of 
encompassed languages is to change.  The macrolanguage that is not 
registered is not the true macrolanguage.

Besides all that, the coded entity that 'yue' and 'wuu' share, and 'ro' 
and 'mo' don't, isn't a "tag" anyway.  In ISO 639-3, it's a "code 
element"; in the Registry, it will be a "Macrolanguage field value."

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:34:50 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell

> I think Randy has a good point here.

+1

Peter

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:19:31 +0900

[technical hat on]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but just want to think things through:

Would this e.g. mean that if we finished 4646bis before there was some
actual action on the Estonian/Vo"ro situation, and that situation would
be solved by the RAs by moving 'et' to macrolanguage, then it would be
up to ietf-languages to decide whether to use extlang or not in this case?

In general, I'd all be for such flexibility, but I'm a bit worried that
it a) would allow the RA to use macrolanguages in the abstract, without
knowing what the impact on the actual coding would be (which might have
them use macrolanguages more than necessary) and b) might lead to a
repetition of the extlang/nextlang arguments on ietf-languages, without
much of a chance for conclusion, and without even the concept of
"rough" consensus.

Regards,    Martin.

>> I think Randy has a good point here.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Leif Halvard Silli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:17:45 +0200

Doug Ewell 2008-06-06 05.51:

> A macrolanguage is what ISO 639-3 says it is.    [...]

'Language' was not invented by ISO. Our draft: 'ISO 639-3 labels 
some languages in the registry as "macrolanguages"'.

However, after a couple of tries, I begin to get used to the taste 
of "share a macrolanguage". Yet, could we change the wording 'a 
macrolanguage' to the wording 'any macrolanguage' in the quote below?

	"For example, Romanian ('ro') and Moldavian ('mo') do not share 
*any* macrolanguage [...]"
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:15:29 -0600

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:

> 'Language' was not invented by ISO.

Sorry, I checked my typing and couldn't find where I said it was.

> Our draft: 'ISO 639-3 labels some languages in the registry as 
> "macrolanguages"'.

Correct.  "Macrolanguage" is a label, or designation, that is applied to 
some languages by ISO 639-3/RA, and will be copied into the Language 
Subtag Registry.

You or I can create any sort of relationship or hierarchy between 
languages that we want, and call them "metalanguages" or 
"hyperlanguages" or whatever.  But when we use the term "macrolanguage," 
we are using an ISO 639-3 term for an ISO 639-3 concept.

---

From: Leif Halvard Silli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:54:44 +0200

> Sorry, I checked my typing and couldn't find where I said it was.

I can only speak for myself:. When I say "language" then I 
encompass "individual language" and "macrolanguage _language_".

> some languages by ISO 639-3/RA, and will be copied into the Language 

No language = no macrolanguage.

I proposed

  "Romanian ('ro') and Moldavian ('mo')
   do not share *any* macrolanguage"

because all other times the draft says "share *a* macrolanguage", 
then we know that the "a" refers to "one *language* that exists". 
  The "any macrolanguage" helps (me) to connect the wording to a 
"non existing macrolanguge language", and thus it helps me avoid 
associating it with something which *isn't* a language -- like a 
label ...

The "do not share *a* macrolonguage" OTOH, makes it sound as if 
those two, 'ro'/'mo' - and no one else - could potentially have 
been a macrolanguage. Which is something we do not know anything 
about.

Hence "do not share *any* macrolanguage" is best.

> we are using an ISO 639-3 term for an ISO 639-3 concept.

'individual' and 'extlang' are in the RFC/ISO's hands as well.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru