[Ltru] Re: Macrolanguages, countries & orthographies
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 15 22:27:32 CET 2007
>From: CE Whitehead [mailto:cewcathar at hotmail.com]
> >> This is absolutely abusing macrolanguage as defined and
> >> intended for use in ISO 639-3. There is no scenario I
> >> can think of in which users would want to consider
> >> resources in English (i.e. what I'm writing in) and Tok
> >> Pisin resources as being in the same language. That's
> >> just silly.
> > I have not studied Tok Pisin, and I can read it easily!!
>Whether you can read it easily is completely irrelevant. Tell me one
>application scenario in which it would make sense to consider English and
>Tok Pisin to be the same language.
I have none for Tok Pisin and English unless someone has got them both mixed
together in a document in such a way that it makes sense encoding the
primary text processing language as a macrolanguage or a collection of
languages that includes both!
In the case of Middle French and Early Modern French, there are points at
which they seem to be about perfectly mixed in documents; the cut-off dates
for one or the other are indeed a bit abitrary as the cut-off also depends
on the locale and the writer's background.
(Since it has been quite clearly stated that neither fr nor fra applies to
frm or fro; that these must all be encoded separately, it is indeed I think
possible at this time to discuss a macrolanguage for at least some of the
French historical varieties;
but I did not request such a macrolanguage;
I do think in addition that it would be a good idea that, when there are
clearly related languages, that they could also be encoded as a collection
at least if not a macrolanguage--once again I am left reviewing the
definitions of these, if there is a document where the varieties are mixed;
I do still somehow feel that, in addition to creating a registry of all the
sil languages, this group should be a bit receptive to the needs of
encoders, especially when the languages are ancient as ancient languages are
not part of the sil repertoire.)
However I only asked for two variant subtags which would make it easier for
me to encode the language in a particular document which I want to have
I need a code for the language in a particular document today and I feel
somehow that you all are trying to prevent languages from being properly
coded here; that is the feeling I get, that you all have skirted the issue
and so forth.
Sorry if I feel a bit negatively at this point, but I do.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>It's one thing to ask, "How should someone handle coding an Old Czech
>document at this point?" It's quite another to go off imagining all kinds
>of ways in which language varieties are related and suppose that we need to
>create coded entities for various partitions of interrelated varieties.
>"Let's have a macrolanguage for creoles and pidgins resulting from contact
>between English and Polynesian languages." "Let's have a macrolanguage for
>creoles and pidgins resulting from contact between English and West African
>languages." "Let's have a macrolanguage for all languages that have
>incorporated loans from Pali or Sanskrit." It's just crazy!
>It's by no means clear to me that there are usage scenarios in which Modern
>English and Old or even Middle English should be considered the same
>language, but I have no question in my mind that you are completely
>ignoring the intended purpose of the notion "macrolanguage".
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/
More information about the Ietf-languages