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

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Mon, 10 August 2009 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.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 42D5B3A6F2C for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.389, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 9-kaJirx6pAH for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77343A6F28 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU109-W2 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:49 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU109-W2864D3C7156ED0FE36D47B3060@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_55285ce7-b19d-48e2-a3bf-793438b8d343_"
X-Originating-IP: [168.13.191.67]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:36:49 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2009 22:36:49.0712 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CEA3B00:01CA1A0B]
Subject: [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 22:36:47 -0000

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