Re: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Mon, 10 August 2009 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145B33A6F21 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-ZB6ivUsD-o for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1413A6C5E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=t+4A4C02gbhq5DTxdbxY76Uqbbs8LhLZmKU+AP3YOx4lKBTcNMzYGWKyYLqb7PCZ; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.41.52.188] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1MaeBz-0000MF-Pb for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:22:16 -0400
Message-ID: <002901ca1a11$bbce34e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <BLU109-W2864D3C7156ED0FE36D47B3060@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:24:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf6968b1ef591644d39f83950052ff630605e6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.52.188
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:22:13 -0000

Hi -

As co-chair...

Since it relates to the particulars of a specific subtag registration
request, this thread does not belong on the ltru@ietf.org mailing list.

Randy

> From: "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
> To: <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:36 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)
>
>
> Hi.  I see that Wikipedia in fact classifies Erzgebirgisch as Franconian:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzgebirgisch
>
>
>
> This is the Wikipedia description:
>
>
>
> "Erzgebirgisch (or Aarzgebèèrgsch, pronounced [aːɰtskəpɛːɰjkʂ]) is an Upper German dialect, probably belonging to the Franconian
dialect group, spoken mainly in the central Erzgebirge (Ore Mountains). It has received relatively little academic attention. Due to
the high mobility of the population and the resulting contact with Upper Saxon, the high emigration rate and last, but not least,
its low mutual intelligibility with other dialects, the number of speakers is decreasing."
>
>
>
> I'm sorry that I mentioned language genealogy; I agree with Randy that it is more important to construct a tag so that speakers of
the language/dialect will be able to use search algorithms to find a mutually comprehensible dialect/language when theirs is not
available (if there is one):
>
>
>
> Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
> Mon Aug 10 19:44:38 CEST 2009
>
>
>
> > There is not a *requirement* for the tags to reflect genealogy.
> > Though it *can* be helpful, I think the current state of a language
> > and what other language it most closely resembles are more useful
> > when we're constructing tags in terms of "X is a variant of Y".
>
>
>
>
> Two prefixes thus make sense if there are really two varieties of "Erzgebirgisch."
>
>
>
> Another option (one we could have explored a long time ago but apparently decided against doing) is to immediately register the
subtag with a prefix of 'gem' and then add additional prefixes as appropriate once the linguistic research is completed.
>
>
>
> I do not see any reason to wait forever for linguistic research for a subtag.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> C. E. Whitehead
>
> cewcathar@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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