Re: [Ietf-languages] LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Hugh Paterson III wrote:

> As I read this thread, and consider the following:
>> these should probably not be registered unless there is a real need
>> to tag the data with this information.
>
> I'm curious, what are some acceptable definitions/examples of "real
> need"? what qualifies and what doesn't qualify?

This falls into the same category as the Suppress-Script thread from a few weeks ago, and may have been partly prompted by it.

Different people have different views on this, and in the end it's the Reviewer's opinion that matters. Here's mine:

"Real need" implies that you have, or someone has, or someone can reasonably envision (without stretching credulity too far) a need to tag linguistic content as to the language variety being discussed. That does not mean simply that the content happens to be in that variety, but that it is deemed necessary or desirable to point out that variety in the tag.

This is different from registering a subtag simply to document, in the Language Subtag Registry, that a variety exists. That is not the purpose of the Registry.

Currently, Lenny Soshinskiy has proposed a variant subtag for a largely pre-20th-century orthography of Latvian that differs substantially from the modern one. The presumption, in considering this request, is that Lenny or someone would like to use a BCP 47 tag to indicate that some content is in the old orthography, or can reasonably envision needing this capability in the future, not merely to record the existence of the old orthography. This seems (always IMHO) like a good reason to add a subtag.

There is a question whether the existing orthography, the one used to write 99.99999% of modern Latvian (probably not enough 9's), should also have a subtag, so content in that orthography can be identified. This would be appropriate if there is some reason to call attention to the use of modern orthography. Normally there isn't, but readers of my comments about Suppress-Script a few weeks ago will remember that it might occasionally be necessary, i.e. to explicitly tag two contrasting varieties.

There is another question whether an intermediate orthography, very similar to the current one but with three "old" letters that have since been replaced, should also have a subtag. The same criterion would apply here as for the pre-20th-century orthography: is there an actual need or desire to point out the variety as part of the tag? That doesn't necessary follow just because the content happens to be in that variety.

By analogy, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as originally printed by John Dunlap [1], happens to contain a lot of capitalized nouns, the style of the day. That characteristic does not necessarily warrant a subtag. There's no particular need to use a BCP 47 tag to call attention to those capital letters.

I hope this helps, and again, ultimately it's Michael Everson who will make the determination.

[1] https://teachingamericanhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/3694394069_2d41fa536e_b.jpg

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