RE: [Ltru] Extended language tags

"Don Osborn" <> Fri, 05 October 2007 03:42 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ide5U-0005xk-Q2; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:42:52 -0400
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ide5T-0005uE-Ma for; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:42:51 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ide5T-0005qt-Bx for; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:42:51 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ide5O-0003JS-QF for; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:42:47 -0400
Received: (qmail 598 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2007 22:42:34 -0500
Received: from (HELO IBM92AA25595C4) ( by with SMTP; 4 Oct 2007 22:42:34 -0500
From: "Don Osborn" <>
To: "'Andrew Cunningham'" <>, <>
References: <> <> <> <000001c806f1$a041a200$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Extended language tags
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 23:42:30 -0400
Message-ID: <003901c80701$c202bc20$46083460$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcgG+S/hYWXxb8r+TlK3F4nftuussAABPb3Q
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Cunningham []
> But at the moment, the way I'm using "din" is as an
> unspecified variety of Dinka not covered by the current
> ISO-639-3 codes".

Which seems to be saying that in this case there is need for an appropriate level of imprecision in the tagging, and that this is met by the macrolanguage code alone (which is in 639-3 also, as I read it). I'm thinking that this is not so much the exception, but a situation that can arise with many other (macro)languages where there is no formal standard.

I can see the point of having a tag to describe a standardized form, if such a formal standardization is arrived at (though I'm not sure where discussions are re ar and Standard Arabic). But what if usages just keep crossing or blurring the lines among "languages" within the "macrolanguage"?  This is not just limited to Dinka - there were a few publications in Fulfulde a while back (one title was Janng'en Fulfulde as I recall) that deliberately tried to address a range of speakers (to the point of having footnotes to clarify usage in specific dialects where these were markedly different). Nowadays, anyone could try that on a website, blog or Wikipedia. In such a case wouldn't the ISO 639-1/2 code (ff/ful) be appropriate?

Maybe there's no argument here, but I wanted to underscore this perspective before letting it be.


Ltru mailing list