Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

These are both adequate explanations of how Arcaicam Esperantom differs
from standard Esperanto. They don't necessarily address the question of
whether the present use case is tagging of actual content or
documentation of a language variety. BCP 47 tags aren't for the latter.

That said, I'm convinced that this is a solid request. If I were the
Reviewer, I'd expect to approve it.

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


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form
From: Ben Scarborough <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, November 24, 2020 7:02 pm
To: Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]

Doug,

There are two circumstances where I think the language tag would be
useful.

1) Separating Arcaicam Esperantom data from standard Esperanto. Reading
A.E.
requires a bit of knowledge beyond fundamenta Esperanto, and
appropriately
tagged resources would make it easier to provide users with glosses or
text
replacement or even automated translation. (A naïve translation of A.E.
to
Esperanto is likely to sound stilted, but it is more feasible than an
automated
process going the other way around.)

2) Screen readers. Any Esperanto text-to-speech program given unexpected
Arcaicam Esperantom text is going to have a hard time producing
understandable
output. Being able to switch to different pronunciation rules, or to
request an
alternate data stream, or even to notify the user that a blob of text is
"arkaike Esperanta teksto" might be more helpful than a system
attempting
inhuman consonant clusters (or worse, interrupting words with the entire
phrase
"latin small ligature oe").

Both of these cases are aided by being able to tag Arcaicam Esperantom
text
differently than standard Esperanto.

—Ben Scarborough