Re: [Ietf-languages] Latin Sub tags

[Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>]

Has there been any discussion across the registrars for moving the
management of codes between the registrars?

For example, if new Latin tags/codes were submitted to iso639-3, and they
were accepted, the registrar has already indicated that the normal process
is to deprecate the current tag/code [lat].  WHAT IF, that current tag were
to be assumed by the ISO639-5 registrar? In a sense by proposing new Latin
language tags for old-classical-neo one would not be negating the current
tag as the current tag has in essence been operating as a macro-language
tag (in a hypothetical situation where these other Latin tags are accounted
as languages). The assumption of deprecation seems erroneous to me. But
maybe I’m not understanding an important part of the information standard
management process.

In the past we have seen tags removed/deprecated and then reactivated. So
why can’t a tag move from single language to a macro-language where the
macro-language is an entity/concept through time? Likewise why can a code
move from representing a single language to representing a group of
languages? Especially if that is how the tag has been functioning already?


All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:53 PM Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hugh Paterson III wrote:
>
> > Specifically though I am curious about the conceptual entities such as
> > Early Latin, Classical Latin, and Medieval Latin. These three eras are
> > well attested in Latin oriented scholarly literature. [...]
> >
> > In considering an application for these three varieties of Latin, the
> > time-depth boundaries for these three "varieties" are contested,
> > therefore I don't think that a variant tag relating to a time frame is
> > especially neutral or clear.
>
> If these three stages of Latin are in fact “well attested” (which they
> are), and their main distinguishing characteristic is temporal (as opposed,
> say, to other dimensions as described by Sebastian Drude), then any variant
> subtags *should* relate to time frames. Better that than inventing some
> bogus relationship.
>
> The assumption, of course and as always, is that these varieties warrant
> separate tagging; that is, someone has a need to identify or search for
> content in each of these varieties.
>
> > Some languages such as Greek have separate ISO639-3 codes for
> > different time depths: e.g., [ell] and [grc]. My understanding is that
> > this time based split was introduced to ISO639-3 via compatibility
> > requirements with ISO639-2 and time depth indication via ISO639-3 is
> > not a viable way to argue for the introduction of a "new language"
> > code to ISO639-3.
>
> Every language is different, and must be considered separately. The normal
> disagreements over what distinguishes a language from a dialect or other
> variety (don’t say it, John) become even less consistent when considering
> “old” and “middle” and “modern” varieties. Basically all linguists consider
> Old English, Middle English, and Modern English to be separate languages,
> but that might not be true for some other languages with “Old” varieties.
>
> ISO 639-2 has little to do with this. Numerous code elements for “Old” and
> “Middle” languages have been added to 639-3 that were not distinguished in
> 639-2.
>
> > Additionally, the ISO639-2 registrar could be approached to add these
> > as "languages" -- there is sufficient publishing in these "languages"
> > to meet the guideline ISO639-2 requirements. The result being that
> > they would be de facto introduced to the ISO639-3 set of codes.
> > However, I'm not at all sure that pathway really solves any long term
> > goals for indication of time depths. (Is the ISO639-2 registrar on
> > this list?)
>
> I don’t think the focus on 639-2 is well placed. A code element does not
> have to be added to 639-2 before it can be added to 639-3; it’s the other
> way around. The only updates to 639-2 now are to stay aligned with 639-3.
>
> > Type: variant
> > Subtag: peano
> > Description: Latino Sine Flexione
>
> Latino sine flexione is an odd bird: an auxiliary language wholly
> constructed by modifying a natural language. It is a variety of Latin, but
> of a different sort from Early and Classical and Medieval Latin, which
> evolved organically over time. Both types of language variety (and more)
> can be described by variant subtags.
>
> The correct process, if there is a question whether a “variety” is
> actually a separate language, is to propose it to ISO 639-3/RA *first*. If
> that proposal is rejected on the basis of being a dialect or other variety,
> then we can have that debate here, and in the vanishingly unlikely case we
> think we know better, we can register a 5- to 8-letter primary language
> subtag. The much more likely outcome is that we register a variant subtag
> (or none at all).
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>