Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

[Kent Karlsson <[e-mail]>]

Den 2019-03-09 14:19, skrev "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham=[e-mail]>:

> There is an argument for calling it the "Bornholmsk" variety of
> Scanian,

No, there is not. *Modern* 'Scanian' (skånska) is a dialect of Swedish.
While well-known, it is *not* even one of the most distinctive
(in 'distance' from 'standard' Swedish).

Bornholmian (bornholmsk) is quite distinct. Whether it should be seen
as a language of its own (compare Norwegian bokmål and Nynorsk, which
are not all that distinct, and still registered as separate languages)
or as a dialect of Danish, I leave to others to judge.

> but Scanian was stripped of its ISO 693-3 language status in
> 2009.

Peter C gave the correct story. (I was not involved in the Swedish
NB vote on this, but I strongly agree with it.)

> I see no evidence of an army or a navy,

Can we please *not* have this irrelevant argument repeated here
on this list.

> though the Danish armed forces
> are probably good evidence that the local tongue of Bornholm is not a
> dialect of Swedish.
> 
> It might be better to introduce it as the "Bornholmsk Scandinavian
> dialect".

What is 'Scandinavian' supposed to be here? (The term *is* used, but
for Danish as pronounced in Iceland (taught in Icelandic schools).
Easier to understand in Norway/Sweden than "normally" pronounced
Danish... And understandable in Denmark too...)

/Kent K

> Is it true that it has the same orthography as Danish?
> Could the interpretation of the locale usefully fall back to
> standard Danish when there is no usable data for Bornholmsk?
> 
> Richard.