Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell

> > - where content written in an encompassed language is also
> > understandable in the predominant language (that being a distinct
> > language encompassed by the same macrolanguage), the content could
> > also be tagged with the macrolanguage identifier. Thus if a Cantonese
> > passage is understandable if read as Mandarin, it could also be
> tagged
> > with "zh", or where a Tajiki Arabic passage is also understandable in
> > Standard Arabic it could be tagged with "ar".
>
> Cantonese "is a" Chinese, it falls under the Chinese macrolanguage
> umbrella, and therefore it could legitimately be tagged with "zh"
> whether or not it is understandable if read as Mandarin.
>
> Unfortunately, this wording takes us back to the mindset that Chinese =
> Mandarin = "zh", and other Chinese languages are not "zh".  I thought
> we
> had just agreed not to do that.

Well, you demonstrate that it evidently reads that way, though it's not quite saying that: this is a exception to the general recommendation. In general, we would not recommend that people tag Cantonese content as "zh", although they certainly can. The situation in which it's *most* reasonable to tag Cantonese content "zh" is when it is understandable to those that read Mandarin -- meaning it's understandable by the vast majority.

Do you only have a critique? Did you not find the overall text useful enough to even consider suggestions for how to improve? Overall, was it of no value?

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