Re: [Ietf-languages] Latin Sub tags

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

It would be perfectly reasonable to provide variant subtags for those
types.  They don't exist now because nobody has requested them.

Latino Sine Flexione is a simplified version of Latin devised by the
mathematician Giuseppe Peano in 1903 for international communication.
 Here's a little bit of it:

Latino es lingua internationale in occidente de Europa ab tempore de
imperio romano, per toto medio aevo, et in scientia usque ultimo seculo.
Seculo vigesimo es primo que non habe lingua commune. Hodie quasi omne
auctore scribe in proprio lingua nationale, id es in plure lingua
neo-latino, in plure germanico, in plure slavo, in nipponico et alio. Tale
multitudine de linguas in labores de interesse commune ad toto humanitate
constitute magno obstaculo ad progressu.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:07 PM Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Has there been any discussion (historical context) for indicating varieties of Latin [https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/lat]?
>
> Specifically though I am curious about the conceptual entities such as Early Latin, Classical Latin, and Medieval Latin. These three eras are well attested in Latin oriented scholarly literature. Has there ever been a request for sub-tags for these? If so, why were they denied?
>
>
> In BCP-47 Latin would be indicated using ISO639-1 code [la]. So I searched for variant codes with a prefix with the value of [la]. Nothing was found for Early Latin, Classical Latin, or Medieval Latin.
>
>
> In considering an application for these three varieties of Latin, the time-depth boundaries for these three "varieties" are contested, therefore I don't think that a variant tag relating to a time frame is especially neutral or clear.
>
> Is there anyone on this list who would consider Early Latin, Classical Latin, or Medieval Latin to be separate languages?
>
> Some languages such as Greek have separate ISO639-3 codes for different time depths: e.g., [ell] and [grc]. My understanding is that this time based split was introduced to ISO639-3 via compatibility requirements with ISO639-2 and time depth indication via ISO639-3 is not a viable way to argue for the introduction of a "new language" code to ISO639-3. (It would be nice if the ISO639-3 registrar or other knowledgeable person could comment on this aspect.) Additionally, the ISO639-2 registrar could be approached to add these as "languages" -- there is sufficient publishing in these "languages" to meet the guideline ISO639-2 requirements. The result being that they would be de facto introduced to the ISO639-3 set of codes. However, I'm not at all sure that pathway really solves any long term goals for indication of time depths. (Is the ISO639-2 registrar on this list?)
>
>
> I note Exhibit 1 from the registry. However its comment seems to indicate that this is an auxiliary language -- a language -- I emphasise. My general understanding of variant tags which have a prefix is that they are not languages but variants of a language. So I question the clarity of the wording of the comment. Maybe I need to refine my understanding, or maybe I am not fully understanding what an 'auxiliary language' is.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hugh
>
> Exhibit 1
>
> %%
> Type: variant
> Subtag: peano
> Description: Latino Sine Flexione
> Description: Interlingua de API
> Description: Interlingua de Peano
> Prefix: la
> Comments: Peano’s Interlingua, created in 1903 by Giuseppe Peano as an
>   international auxiliary language
> Added: 2020-03-12
> %%
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>