Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form & ISO 21636 Dimensions

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Sebastian Drude wrote:

> Michael: I don’t know if I prefer “variety” to “dialect”
>
> I did not think that “dialect” was among the options; we are
> discussing “sociolect” vs. “register” or perhaps the neutral “variety”
> (sociolects, registers, and dialects are all different kinds of
> varieties, as ISO 21636 understand these terms).  "Dialect" is not
> compatible with ISO/TR21636 (see below).

I'm pretty sure Michael was not talking about ISO TR 21636, but about the Comments field in Ben Scarborough's registration form for 'arcaicam', which was the original subject that used the Subject line "Language subtag registration form."

This perhaps shows what can happen when the topic of discussion on a mailing list changes, but the Subject line does not. I've been guilty of this too, in the current discussions.

I don't believe Ben's proposal for 'arcaicam' needs to be at risk because we can't agree among ourselves whether it's a dialect, a sociolect, a chronolect, or some other kind of lect. It's an odd bird, a constructed language conceived as a variation of a constructed language. We ought to be able to figure out a NON-NORMATIVE way to describe it in this Comments field, and go with it, unless there are genuine concerns about whether this variant should be encoded or about some other, more important aspect of the request.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org