Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

The written forms of Norwegian don't align well with particular spoken
forms, unlike the national varieties of English.  In Norway there is no
standard spoken language: you speak your own dialect and write either
Nynorsk (10-15%) or Bokmål.  So the written form is unambiguously nb or nn,
and the spoken form is unambiguously no.  When people tag a written form as
no, they usually mean Bokmål, but that's not the kind of thing that
extended filtering was meant to handle.

A young Russian worker travels to Norway, right after the Bolshevik
Revolution. He enters a pub and finds all the occupants quarreling about
something in a flaming temper. He asks one of them: “Does this mean the
revolution is starting in Norway, too?” – “Oh no”, says a Norwegian; “we
are just arguing about how to *spell* the word.”   (It's in fact
_revolusjon_ in both.)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:31 AM Florian Rivoal <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 30, 2019, at 13:06, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > It was only done for macrolanguages that already had compound tags like
> zh-yue, plus a few others that seemed likely to be treated similiarly,
> often because they only a single written form between them.  Aymara is a
> macrolanguage with two individual languages, Central and Southern, but only
> Central has a written form and is an official language (of Bolivia).  If
> you don't care about the diffference, you can use ay, or you can use ayc or
> ayr to distinguish, but nobody has to worry about abstracting over them.
>
> Not sure I get it.
>
> nb is the preferred form of grandfathered+deprecated no-bok, nn of no-nyn,
> and no is marked as a macrolanguage. Why do they have not extlang?
>
> —Florian