RE: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

"Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se> Sat, 08 December 2007 21:48 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J17Wj-0005oA-5i; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:48:01 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J17Wh-0005eu-1n for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:47:59 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J17Wg-0005em-O9 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:47:58 -0500
Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J17We-0006pB-Kr for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:47:58 -0500
Received: from c83-248-85-53.bredband.comhem.se ([83.248.85.53]:4250 helo=wgbgkka02x) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>) id 1J17Wc-0002Xm-9R; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:47:55 +0100
From: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
To: 'Mark Davis' <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, 'Peter Constable' <petercon@microsoft.com>
References: <003701c839c9$b3342d50$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81><30b660a20712081115v7eb67a1ci52e43763e61be39f@mail.gmail.com><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561E514327E@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><30b660a20712081130k3c83c415jfc3f6c2ae1b2b1a6@mail.gmail.com><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561E5143280@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <30b660a20712081207n1e8f99dpb2fca7ba34e22b9f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:47:40 +0100
Message-ID: <015a01c839e3$fc607b40$2559f853@streamserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <30b660a20712081207n1e8f99dpb2fca7ba34e22b9f@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Index: Acg51erKCFcv2WlFQeqcw7xj9dCkOwABH4Ww
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Originating-IP: 83.248.85.53
X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1J17Wc-0002Xm-9R.
X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1J17Wc-0002Xm-9R 9d70e282e9401b42c6f0a8034edf354d
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 9f79b8e383fd3af2b1b5b1d0910f6094
Cc: 'Doug Ewell' <dewell@roadrunner.com>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0275123973=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Mark Davis wrote:

Sorry. What I mean is, when you look at the list I sent out, there are lots of duplicate names, like Mari, Konkani, Kare, etc. Some of those have macrolanguage relationships (like Mari), and some don't (like Ainu). There are 4 possible classes of duplicates: 

1. They have no genetic relationship, thus there is no macrolanguage (Ainu)
2. They have a genetic relationship, but neither was in 639-2, so there is no need for a macrolanguage (Tonga?)
3. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so there is a macrolanguage (Mari) 
4. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so one of them should be a macrolanguage but isn't. (??)

I wanted confirmation that #4 was empty. 

Regarding 2:
 
tnz   I L Tonga  Tonga (Thailand) 4 
tog   I L Tonga  Tonga (Nyasa) 4 
toi   I L Tonga  Tonga (Zambia) 4 
ton to I L Tonga  Tonga (Tonga Islands) 4 
 
Given the geographical spread here, it seems unlikely that these four are all related...
And Ethnologue says they are not related, not even the Nyasa (Malawi) and Zambia ones.
 
But in general, if there is a macrolanguage relationship that should have been noted in
639-3 quite regardless of 639-2, should it not. If not, I think something is wrong
(and then I'm especially happy that the extlang reserved feature will not be used).
 
Regarding the country parentheticals, I'm not too happy about them either.
A language may well be spoken, in a significant fraction, outside of the
country of origin. And the display names, in at least one display name
generator, will turn out strange. Take tnz as an example:
 
tnz            Tonga (Thailand)
tnz-TH       Tonga (Thailand) (Thailand)
tnz-MY      Tonga (Thailand) (Malaysia)
 
Compare to:
 
th         Thai
th-TH    Thai (Thailand)
 
"Tonga (Thailand)" could be (mis)read as "Tonga as spoken in Thailand"
(with some extra implications for locale choice, which may also
imply (default) currency choice).
 
While not directly an LTRU issue, it's close enough I think.
 
 
            /kent k
 
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru