Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:26:21 -0700

Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:

>> If m*crolanguage is an offensive term, perhaps macrolanguage is as 
>> well?
>
> This episode most certainly casts some doubt on that term, if its use 
> can so easily generate a concept we do not want to planted in the mind 
> of an innocent professional (such as yourself).

Okay, we need to end this line of insinnuendo *right now*.

NOBODY in this Working Group, which is chartered to provide a mechanism 
for tagging content in over 7,600 languages and variants, is interested 
in "denigrating," or insulting, or relegating to second-class status, 
any of those 7,600 languages.  I am certain beyond question that neither 
Karen nor John in particular has that in mind.  We would not be in this 
WG if that were the case.

ISO 639-3 introduced a new word, "macrolanguage," for a concept such as 
"Chinese" which is considered a single language in some contexts and 
multiple languages in others.  It's a useful concept, and the term is 
more or less arbitrary; I doubt I could come up with a better one in 
five minutes.

The word "encompassed" has been used in ISO 639-3 to describe languages 
like Cantonese and Wu that are covered under the "macrolanguage" called 
Chinese.  The term "encompassed language" doesn't flow off the tongue 
nearly as easily as its counterpart "macrolanguage," and might not have 
caught on yet, so Karen apparently used the ad-hoc term "microlanguage" 
in a private message and John repeated it on-list.

"Micro-" is an obvious opposite of "macro-".  This sort of word-forming 
process is common among technical-minded people, including much of the 
LTRU membership (I make up words every day).  There is no negative 
connotation associated with this "micro-" prefix, least of all in the 
minds of people who work every day with "microcomputers" which use 
"microprocessors" that execute "microcode" and run software produced by 
a business giant called "Microsoft."

We had to endure a similar accusation some time ago over the terms 
"primary language subtag" and "extended language subtag."  No, we do not 
consider some languages to be "primary" and other, less fortunate 
languages to be "extended"; those are terms used to describe the short 
alphabetic identifiers that go into a language tag.  The same is true 
for "macrolanguage" and whatever we choose to call the individual 
languages they stand for.

Let's all get back to the business at hand and show some respect for the 
intentions of our fellow list members.  A little less caffeine might be 
a good idea as well.

--
Doug Ewell · Fullerton, California, USA · RFC 4645 · UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:46:04 -0700

I'd also add that I'm far from innocent, but that discussion is outside of 
the scope of the charter so let's get back to business. Thanks, Doug.

Karen Broome

"Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]> 
08/31/2007 10:26 AM

To
"LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang