Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for variant language subtags for German dialects

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

There is work being done at present on a new standard (ISO 21636, “A Framework for Language Varieties”) which might cover a lot of what Hugh is talking about, whenever it is finalized and published.

Beyond that, it is always possible in BCP 47 to have both variant and private-use subtags at multiple levels, so that one could have some combination of:

en-US-engne
en-US-enboston *or* en-US-engne-enboston
en-US-ennwyork *or* en-US-engne-ennwyork
(although I doubt New Yorkers would identify themselves as part of New England)
en-US-ennwyork-enmanhtn

and the beat goes on, with any of the lower-level variants in these examples being replaced by private-use subtags:

en-US-x-engne
en-US-engne-x-enboston
etc.

As always, there is a two-edged sword when it comes to private-use coding elements. If a private code achieves widespread use, that is a good indication that the thing being privately coded needs to be assigned a formal code; but then it becomes increasingly difficult for users to migrate away from the private code, which then might have to be supported indefinitely.

If it does not achieve widespread use, despite its existence being known, that probably means it was a wise decision not to assign a formal code.

Language can be micro-analyzed down to a very fine level of detail, but the question must always be asked whether there is a broad need to interchange identifiers for different sub-sub-varieties. Many New Yorkers can distinguish English as spoken in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn vs. Queens, but would content in these varieties (not only on computers, and not only spoken) actually be tagged separately, by more than one individual or small research body, if the possibility to do so without private-use were available?

I wish it were possible to know how people use BCP 47, and how people wish they could use it but either can’t, or don’t know that they can, similar to the way Unicode is able to use Google statistics to estimate which emoji are most popular.

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



From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hugh Paterson III
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 16:26
To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lisa Dücker <lisa.duecker=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for variant language subtags for German dialects

John,

Can you help clarify how many sub levels are presumed in these sub-tags.  For example, if we say that we assign a tag to ‘New England English’ does that preclude creating a tag for ‘New York’ and/or ‘Boston’ Englishes? If New York Englanish has a tag does that preclude a Manhattan English? If English is the language name and there is hierarchy in the geographical units does that create an assumption that the speech varieties are also hierarchical in their designation too? Or is it all flat and exclusive within the context of the sub-language level? 

Written varieties which have been debated in this forum (such as the German orthography) generally have dates associated giving them a time depth with dates usually based on implementation dates.  In contrast oral records and oral realities “on the ground” do not change with discrete dates. For example, New York English “on the ground” doesn’t generally sound like Bernie Sanders or Christopher Walken.  That is they represent Brooklyn/queens New York English they represent a certain time depth and social class which may have been dominant at one point for the speech they represent. However, Even the same social class and racial backgrounds don’t sound the same today with younger generations. How do we model time depth for archival oral materials via sub tags?