Re: [Ltru] Extended language tags

Don Osborn scripsit:

> 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). 

Arabic's like Chinese: there's a prestige variety, which has its own
639-3 code, and then there are the other varieties, which have 639-3
codes too.  Each set is encompassed by a macrolanguage that is in both
639-2 and 639-3.

Most textual documents are in the prestige variety (as an uncontroversial
consequence of the prestige variety being the only one normally used
for writing at all), and are tagged with the macrolanguage code (as an
uncontroversial consequence of it being either the only code available
or the only code that most people know about).  Audio/video content may
well be another story, but most of it is neither manually tagged nor
(as yet) automatically taggable.

Macrolanguages like Quechua or Zapotec are another story: there is no
prestige variety particularly.  The African cases sound like they are
moving from the latter group toward the former, with the appearance of
prestige varieties at least in the cities or the diaspora.

-- 
Possession is said to be nine points of the law,                John Cowan
but that's not saying how many points the law might have.       cowan@ccil.org
        --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father)

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