Subject: [Ltru] Section 4.1.x Tagging Macrolanguages/Using the macrolanguage tag

From: Leif Halvard Silli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:45:53 +0200

I propose that we add a small section called

  4.1.x Tagging Macrolanguages

where we -- without touching any user interface issues -- elaborate on 
what 639-3 says about "usage contexts". The text should say that 
"macrolanguage" designates a usage context where "a single language 
identity for all [encompassed languages] is needed" and that the use of 
the macrolanguage subtag is recommended where there really are such needs.

It should emphasize that the subtag exists because there are real needs 
-- in contexts which differs from macrolanguag to macrolanguage -- to 
designate all encompassed languages with one tag. It should advice 
people to read section 4.1.1. in order to get advice about how to tag 
the *encompassed* languages. And it should tell that unless one follows 
the advices about tagging encompassed language then one will not be able 
to use the macrolanguage tag when the "identity for all" is needed. (For 
Konkani, Malay, Swahili, and Uzbek however, the advice should be that 
for those languages one must break the rule about using the 
macrolanguage tag for the dominant language when or if one needs the 
"single identity for all".)

It should tell that in order to use the tag in accordance with the 
definition in 639-3 -- when "a single language identity for all is 
needed" -- does not mean that the content must be multilingual, perhaps 
making a comparsion to "en" by saying "just like it in some usage 
contexts can be appropriate to avoid the region subtag "GB" when tagging 
British English", againt pointing to the fact that identfying something 
as "en" might be enough in a multlingual context. But if the usage 
context focuses on English, then one may need to be more spesific. The 
same goes for macrolanguage tagging. (The example given by many that 
'zh' migh be appropriate if you are unable to discern between the 
varieties of Chinese, seems appropriate and probably represents a 
"multilingual usage context" - where you need to be able a "rougher" 
tagging.)

Comments? Concrete text proposals?

The main issue for me is that we identify the task of tagging a 
macrolanguage as distinct from the task of tagging an encompassed 
language, assigning a separte section for it. And then I shall always be 
able to live with cutting off anything that you prefer to lable as "user 
interface".
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:16:52 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Leif Halvard Silli

> designate all encompassed languages with one tag...
> And it should tell that unless one follows
> to use the macrolanguage tag when the "identity for all" is needed.

While there may be use in pointing out implications of tagging practice, I want to be careful here not to read more into 639-3 than is intended, which I think this would do.

An application may have a requirement for a single identity "Chinese" (or Malay, etc.) that doesn't differentiate at a more granular level, but not have a need for that to cover all encompassed languages. For example, in the history of 639, there were some that used 'zh' explicitly to cover different encompassed languages but without further means of differentiation (MARC), and some that used 'zh' explicitly to cover different encompassed languages with additional qualifying identifiers allowing each encompassed language to be tagged distinctly (IANA Lang Tag registry). But, there were others (terminologists) that used 'zh' without recognizing that any distinct Chinese varieties exist at all (and, in practice, most tagged content would likely have been Mandarin). The latter "need" a single identify for all Chinese in the sense that their applications assume no internal distinctions are relevant. Their need is *not* for 'zh' to identify content in any and all Chinese varieties.

> needed" -- does not mean that the content must be multilingual...

> (The example given by many that

But as explained above, even in the case of 'zh' one does not have to have a multilingual usage to be using 'zh' in accordance with the cited definition in 639-3.

We can certainly suggest what makes good practice, but we should not over-constrain how people use macrolanguage subtags, and particularly should not suggest that 639-3 imposes constraints it does not intend to impose.

Peter

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:52:29 +0900

At 02:16 08/06/10, Peter Constable wrote:
>While there may be use in pointing out implications of tagging practice, I 
>want to be careful here not to read more into 639-3 than is intended, which 
>I think this would do.

Nit-picking:

>An application may have a requirement for a single identity "Chinese" (or 
>Malay, etc.) that doesn't differentiate at a more granular level, but not 
>have a need for that to cover all encompassed languages. For example, in 
>the history of 639, there were some that used 'zh' explicitly to cover 
>different encompassed languages but without further means of 
>differentiation (MARC), and some that used 'zh' explicitly to cover 
>different encompassed languages with additional qualifying identifiers 
>allowing each encompassed language to be tagged distinctly (IANA Lang Tag 
>registry). But, there were others (terminologists) that used 'zh' without 
>recognizing that any distinct Chinese varieties exist at all (and, in 
>practice, most tagged content would likely have been Mandarin).

I don't see exactly what the parenthetical expresssion is referring to.
In my understanding, terminologists won't tag content, or would they?
And the fact that most (written!) content was Mandarin anyway would
apply not only to the terminologists, or would it?

>The latter 
>"need" a single identify for all Chinese in the sense that their 

identify -> identity/identifier

Regards,   Martin.

>applications assume no internal distinctions are relevant. Their need is 
>*not* for 'zh' to identify content in any and all Chinese varieties
> .
>
>
>
>But as explained above, even in the case of 'zh' one does not have to have 
>a multilingual usage to be using 'zh' in accordance with the cited 
>definition in 639-3.
>
>We can certainly suggest what makes good practice, but we should not 
>over-constrain how people use macrolanguage subtags, and particularly 
>should not suggest that 639-3 imposes constraints it does not intend to impose.
>
>
>
>Peter

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:10:00 -0700

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]]

> I don't see exactly what the parenthetical expresssion is referring to.

Instances/examples.

> In my understanding, terminologists won't tag content, or would they?

Well, ISO 639-1 was developed by a committee whose primary focus at the time was terminology.

Peter