Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Again, it's never really safe to think of any sign language as being based on a spoken/written language. Think of English and ASL as being totally unrelated, even if influences exist.English and Signed English (of any flavor), of course, are another matter.--Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.orgSent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: David Starner <[e-mail]> Date: 11/30/19  02:58  (GMT-07:00) To: ietf-languages <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign
  languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an
  individual language in "sign language modality" I'm not particularly sure I see the value in a generic modality tag;that's usually implicit in the medium. Moreover, for most languagesand standard written language tagging, the bare language tag is enoughto get readable text back; the modern language community has settledon one script with minimal enough variation in orthography. Writtenlanguage tagging would be marginally useful at best for me if "en"ever in practice implied "en-Aran" or "en-Hani", and there was no wayto add the script to the language tag. (I believe it would literallybe easier to decipher fr-Latn (a language of which I know nothing)than en-Aran.) Likewise, that sign language in question is at the baseEnglish is of little help if one is not familiar with the particularway that English is signed in this case.-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero._______________________________________________Ietf-languages mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages