Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

The phrase "remain unrealized in meaning" is very odd, and certainly not
very clear. Normally if I "realize the meaning" of something, I understand
it. That is not at all what is being talked about.

>the sum of its component attributes may not represent a meaningful
combination within actual language usage

We are not "summing" attributes, and the combinations ARE meaningful.

People are confusing a "meaningful" with "currently applicable to existing
instances". These are just not the same, and confusing them makes for fuzzy
and inappropriate language.

   - "articulate US president" is perfectly meaningful, but has no
   existing instances
   - "colorless green ideas" is not meaningful, and has no existing
   instances
   - "controversial US president" is both meaningful, and has existing
   instances

Addisons phrasing is fine.

Mark

BTW, there are very few times where I have call to use my PhD these days, so
its nice to find an application for it ;-)

On 8/1/07, David Dalby <daviddalby@linguasphere.info> wrote:
>
>  Addison, You seem to have missed the second in my quick sequence of two
> e-mails. What is wrong with the simple statement (?):
>
> "A langtag may be formally valid but remain unrealized in meaning, e.g.
> ...."  This even allows for the unlikely event of its meaning becoming
> realized.
>
> Of course, the large majority of ALL potential langtags with subtags will
> never be realized in meaning, but this very obvious point should surely be
> dealt with as briefly as possible.
>
> Regards, David
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: 01 August 2007 16:52
> To: David Dalby
> Cc: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Marion Gunn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
>
>
>
> You have to read the document. The terms "valid" and "well-formed" have
>
> a different meaning in the context of RFC 4646/4646bis. The term "valid"
>
> was chosen carefully in this context.
>
>
>
> Mark and others are correct that every tag has *a* meaning (we even
>
> spell out the one for the "meaningless" tag in the example). But that
>
> does not mean that every tag is *meaningful*.
>
>
>
> How about this version instead:
>
>
>
>
>
> <t>Validity of a tag is not everything. While every valid tag has a
>
> meaning, it might not represent any real language usage. This is
>
> unavoidable in a system in which subtags can be combined freely. For
>
> example, tags such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in
>
> Colombia ) or "tlh-Kore-AQ-fonipa" (Klingon, Korean script, as used in
>
> Antarctica, IPA phonetic transcription) are both valid and unlikely to
>
> represent a useful combination of language attributes.</t>
>
>
>
> Addison
>
>
>
> David Dalby wrote:
>
> > I agree!
>
> >
>
> > David
>
> >
>
> >  _____________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > Dr David Dalby
>
> > The Linguasphere Observatory
>
> > Hebron
>
> > Whitland
>
> > Wales
>
> > SA34 0XT
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk]
>
> > Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44
>
> > To: addison@yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'
>
> > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
>
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
>
> >
>
> > Addison wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.
>
> >
>
> > I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a contradiction
> in
>
> > terms.  I would propose one of the following:
>
> >
>
> > ---
>
> > A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.
>
> >
>
> > A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet
> meaningless
>
> > in terms of its attributes. For example, ...
>
> >
>
> > ---
>
> >
>
> > Best
>
> >
>
> > Debbie
>
> >
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
>
> >> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com]
>
> >> Sent: 31 July 2007 16:52
>
> >> To: Marion Gunn
>
> >> Cc: LTRU Working Group
>
> >> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
>
> >>
>
> >> Marion Gunn wrote:
>
> >>  >
>
> >>  > However, here goes with one more attempt:
>
> >>  >
>
> >>  > "For example, although a tag such as 'ar-Cyrl-CO' (Arabic,
>
> >> as used in  > Columbia,  > written in Cyrillic script) is
>
> >> valid, it is [most] unlikely to be of  > use, because  > such
>
> >> combination of attributes is unlikely to occur in actual
>
> >> language  > use."
>
> >>  >
>
> >>
>
> >> I note that it is useful to look at the actual editor's copy
>
> >> when suggesting minor editorial changes. Upon reflection, I
>
> >> found the current sentence to be a bit of a run-on. I've
>
> >> taken your suggestion of 'unlikely' and edited further such
>
> >> that the paragraph now reads:
>
> >>
>
> >> <t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag can be valid
>
> >> yet meaningless. This is unavoidable with a generative system
>
> >> like the language subtag mechanism. For example, a tag such
>
> >> as "ar-Cyrl-CO"
>
> >> (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is perfectly valid.
>
> >> However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag, as it represents
>
> >> an unlikely combination of language attributes that is
>
> >> probably unrelated to any real language usage.</t>
>
> >>
>
> >> After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on
>
> >> draft-08. I'm always happy to consider editorial changes that
>
> >> improve the text.
>
> >>
>
> >> Addison
>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >> Addison Phillips
>
> >> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
>
> >> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
>
> >>
>
> >> Internationalization is an architecture.
>
> >> It is not a feature.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> Ltru mailing list
>
> >> Ltru@ietf.org
>
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Ltru mailing list
>
> > Ltru@ietf.org
>
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Addison Phillips
>
> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
>
> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
>
>
>
> Internationalization is an architecture.
>
> It is not a feature.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>

-- 
Mark