Subject: [Ltru] New language subtags

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:59:48 -0800

In addition to "gsw" for Swiss German, two other new code elements have 
just been added to ISO 639-2:

"anp" for Angika
"frr" for Northern Frisian

It has been proposed that "gsw" and presumably these other two should be 
registered after the publication of draft-initial, through the normal 
ietf-languages channel, rather than added to the draft.  I have no 
objection to this.

The three records that would need to be added are as follows:

Type: language
Subtag: anp
Description: Angika
Added: 2005-11-08
%%
Type: language
Subtag: frr
Description: Northern Frisian
Added: 2005-11-08
%%
Type: language
Subtag: gsw
Description: Swiss German
Description: Alemanic
Added: 2005-11-04

The "Added" dates are for illustration; they reflect the date these 
items were added to ISO 639.  In reality, they would be probably 
assigned an "Added" date equal to the date they were registered through 
ietf-languages.

Note that the description of "gsw" was taken verbatim from ISO 639, and 
does not include the name "Schwyzerdütsch" for that reason.  ISO/DIS 
639-3 does use this name.  Note also that "frr" does not currently exist 
in ISO/DIS 639-3, although it does not conflict with it.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:59:28 -0800

(adding LTRU back to the list because of RFC 3066bis registry philosophy 
questions)

John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth dot com> wrote:

>> Note also that "frr" does not currently exist
> Where do you get this from?  Both the Ethnologue and the ISO 639-3
> site show 'frr' as the code for Northern Frisian.

You're right, I screwed up.

Actually a bit of explaining is in order.  As some may know, I have 
already gone ahead and mocked up a possible registry for the anticipated 
future "RFC 3066ter" era, in which each ISO 639-3 code element would be 
utilized as either (a) a primary language subtag or (b) an extended 
language ("extlang") subtag, depending on whether it (b) is or (a) is 
not covered under a macrolanguage code element.  I hope this work will 
end up being of some use to whoever is involved in the RFC 3066ter 
effort.  (I am not making it available at present, so please don't ask 
for it.)

In checking whether the new ISO 639-2 code element "frr" existed in ISO 
639-3, I actually cheated and looked in the RFC 3066ter registry mockup 
instead.  I did not find a primary language subtag "frr", but had I 
looked a little deeper I would have found "frr" as an extlang subtag. 
That is because, as John points out, "frr" (Northern Frisian) is 
actually a member of the ISO 639-3 macrolanguage "fry" (Frisian).

This raises an interesting question.  If "frr" is, in fact, going to be 
an extlang subtag under RFC 3066ter, then it probably doesn't make sense 
to add it as a primary language subtag under RFC 3066bis.  After all, 
there is no provision for reclassifying a subtag from primary language 
to extlang.  I would have to recheck this, but I don't believe there is 
another ISO 639-2 code element that is covered under a macrolanguage in 
639-3.

So if "anp" and "gsw" are to be added to the RFC 3066bis registry 
through the registration process, maybe it would be best NOT to add 
"frr", but rather to wait until the role of that code element in the RFC 
3066ter framework is agreed upon.

> In looking this up, I spotted two serious problems with Frisian...

I have nothing to add to John's very lucid explanation of these issues.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:05:30 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> This raises an interesting question.  If "frr" is, in fact,
> going to be an extlang subtag under RFC 3066ter, then it
> probably doesn't make sense to add it as a primary language
> subtag under RFC 3066bis.

No, that's IMO backwards.  Because frr will be registered as
3066bis language, the fy-frr (or fry-frr ?) extlang combo won't
make it in 3066ter.

Same situation as today, if an alpha-2 code already exists,
a new equivalent alpha-3 code won't be registered.  And vice
versa, but they promised to never create a new alpha-2 code
for an existing alpha-3, so that's only a theoretical case.

If for 639-3 there's no such promise / guarantee, then 3066ter
can pick one of two approaches:  Whatever is registered first
is it, forever.  Or:  if a shorter alpha-3 is registered after
an equivalent extlang-combo, then the latter is deprecated.

> I don't believe there is another ISO 639-2 code element that
> is covered under a macrolanguage in 639-3.

Yes, I vaguely recall a statement from Peter (?) here, it's an
odd case, it shouldn't happen.  But 639-2 is not yet obliged
to play by some future rules, and 639-3 has to be updated for
its own incarnation of "date B", so maybe that can't happen in
any "official" 639-3.

> maybe it would be best NOT to add "frr", but rather to wait
> until the role of that code element in the RFC 3066ter
> framework is agreed upon.

No, it's the idea of 3066bis (and later 3066ter) to eliminate
such ISO issues.  If frr is eligible it should be registered,
let 639-3 get it right.
                         Bye, Frank

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:29:41 -0700

> 3066bis language, the fy-frr (or fry-frr ?) extlang combo won't

I agree entirely.  Shorter subtags beat longer ones.  (It would be
'fy-frr', FWIW.)

An alternative is to change DIS 639-3 so that 'fry' is no longer a
macrolanguage but simply the 639-3 code for Western Frisian, which
is far and away the most prominent kind of Frisian.  In that case,
the RFC 3066bis language subtags would be simply  'fy', 'frr', and
(in RFC 3066ter) 'stg'.

I don't know how much turmoil that would cause with existing data.
It may even be that the 639-2/RA assumed that 'fy'/'fry' already meant
Western Frisian specifically.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      [email-masked]
      That thou wast born with.         http://www.reutershealth.com