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

[Sebastian Drude <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, der Doug.

Sebastian

-- 

Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica ▪ Av. Perimetral, 1901
Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530 ▪ Belém do Pará – PA ▪ Brazil
[e-mail] ▪ [phone] ▪ [phone]
Priv: Tv. Juvenal Cordeiro, 184, Apt 104 ▪ 66070-300 Belém

On 27/11/2020 17:19, Doug Ewell wrote:
> 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."

Yes, and that is what I am talking about.  We were discussing whether 
"sociolect" or "register" would be more apropriate, and I do not know 
when "dialect" was introduced.  I think it is certainly less appropriate 
than both other options, and it would certainly not be compatible with 
the definition of "dialect" in ISO/TR21636, where a dialect is always 
tied to a certain geographical region.  That is what I wanted to say.


> 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.

True.  Which is why I joined the two threads.

> I don't believe Ben's proposal for 'arcaicam' needs to be at risk because

EXACTLY!!  This was just a sideline discussion.  Ben already agreed to 
change the point (3) to the more neutral "variety", which should be 
acceptable to everybody.  I just pointed at a discrepancy between the 
characterization of this (indeed) odd bird as "sociolect" in (3) 
(following the original characterization by its creator) and the --in my 
view, correct-- characterization as a "register" in point (4).  I would 
happily let this issue rest at this point.


> 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
>
>
>