Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

I'd be willing to work with the ISO TC 21636 folks, as a specialist in encoding things rather than in languages or linguistics per se.

Keep in mind that in order to make 21636 work with BCP 47, it really has to be framed as an extension, and the allowable values for each of the eight dimensions may not be open-ended; they must be specified concretely somewhere. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646#section-2.2.6 for more information about BCP 47 extensions. Changing the syntax of BCP 47 tags to add new subtag types is almost certainly a non-starter.

Regarding "sociolect," Ben may be open to changing that one instance of the word. Alternatively, it could be argued that users of Arcaicam Esperantom do indeed belong to a particular social group: that subset of Esperanto users who wish to explore a posited "early form."

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


From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sebastian Drude
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 16:36
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

Hi everyone,
this is the first time I reply directly to such a request, please forgive me if I do mistakes or do not know the correct procedures.
I agree with the proposal; it makes sense to me to have a subtag for this variety of Esperanto.
I only do not agree with the characterization as a "Sociolect" -- a variety of a language which is characteristic for a certain (social) group within the whole speaker community.  As the applicant explains, the same speakers/writers may use it in the same text, so this is (according to the upcoming ISO TC 21636) clearly some kind of register, not a sociolect.  
Which brings us back to the question of how in the future the 8 dimensions identified in ISO TC 21636 can be reflected/applied in the current frameworks, in particular BCP 47).  Are there members of this group who would like to participate with me in a working group that would work out proposals for that?
(Now I see that in point (4) of the proporal 'Arcaicam Esperantom' is also correctly identified as such, so the characterization as sociolect in (3) is probably a mistake or misunderstanding.)