Re: Another attempt at plain language

David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> Sun, 13 September 2015 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4688B7C5A70 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Authentication-Results: mork.alvestrand.no (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iE4RgBjnKK6m for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:19:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D8E7C5A6F for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:19:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by obqa2 with SMTP id a2so92890474obq.3 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q969qCY1x9RCY7ON4PGdTpllRb29qZ66DTxyuLOyCV4=; b=a/stTOAQpeNjrH2XZQPwSLdfzK4ia2n0b6L3ThTYPyMO6qmfM4noyBTCquJd17K1sR xu2GbGnyIbvv7Sr3+xDxZRGoTkzzUl8JGBHjHkJjooc5o3XAIIA5oNf+opu4s0c3+FKc X3ovht59Vbh44Igrd13MQ0qAdy+lzcS2p0NxudggGKQrjkexnu+ydD/tFtYmu0wPdCac pMjp0CZ6jeS6YnHzxyn0mz4p6jzk9vfQkpEvwvv/Q6oq4Pfejobal8TUJ50cQ5VA7dUH O/FpUMLlKw479xi3+wqqtqFrLqXT4yT3u0A1z8hVoC2rgkID+89wrCVG4tJIkm6VPN17 MYTA==
X-Received: by 10.60.80.229 with SMTP id u5mr7896778oex.27.1442161160112; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20150911114034.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.2d59df3fda.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <BLUPR03MB137869AD3EB9D03F3941C62C82500@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20150911191203.GA7765@mercury.ccil.org> <BLUPR03MB137858D047C2E4A29AD4673782500@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BLUPR03MB1378F38B475273F4277E351D82500@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAMZ=zj7-pd3qjHVyq7OHFhq1jrB48+yLRZ8XQZu_kg6Mf9MyGQ@mail.gmail.com> <93AD67FB-C7DF-41B9-95A0-BB6E1AEBA0F6@evertype.com> <mt42f5$2hb$1@ger.gmane.org> <4E788F2B-BAF1-4B3E-A110-656E737F1524@evertype.com> <CAJ2xs_EUDJpKhf_-ZV643sy-m4ADpArNS=t9d-zGyjn_-br48A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_EUDJpKhf_-ZV643sy-m4ADpArNS=t9d-zGyjn_-br48A@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMZ=zj4D+a0yASUGhrTosf4piRRk9-MrBFV7xLty33vq-NohzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Another attempt at plain language
To: Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cbcc6a850ef051fa34f89"
Cc: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no, Tobias Bengfort <tobias.bengfort@posteo.de>
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:19:23 -0000

Every language in ISO 639-1 I could produce a sample of text that every one
would agree was that language. It's hard to imagine a chunk of text that
most we agree is en-plain. Is this en-plain? I did not intend it to be so.

On 8:49am, Sun, Sep 13, 2015 Mark Davis ☕

wrote



Of the many thousands of languages that are encodeable with BCP47, almost
none of them have a "precise definition". It is not productive to disallow
a reasonably clear variant because it doesn't meet a standard *also not met
by essentially any of the primary language subtags.*