Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> Here are some comments on Mark and Addison's proposed Macrolanguage 
> section.  All of this is presuming that the Macrolanguage field is in 
> and the extlang mechanism is out; none of these comments is meant as an 
> argument against this course of action.

+1 except as noted.

> >In some cases, the Macrolanguage has a standard form as well as a 
> >variety of less-common dialects.
> 
> "varieties"
> 
> >In other cases there is no particular standard form and the 
> >encompassed subtags describe specific variations within the parent 
> >language.
> 
> But again, there must always be the condition that the variations are 
> sometimes considered to be a single language.  That's what makes it a 
> macrolangauge relationship, and not a collection or something we should 
> be using variants for.

These revisions don't go nearly far enough.  I think we'd need
something like:

	Sometimes one language encompassed by the macrolanguage
	is sociologically dominant over the others, perhaps because
	it has more speakers or is closest to the standard written
	form that represents the macrolanguage as a whole.
	In other cases this is not so.

I continue to support the use of extlangs.

-- 
What asininity could I have uttered     John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
that they applaud me thus?              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Phocion, Greek orator

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru