Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

CE Whitehead <> Thu, 16 July 2009 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0559428C10B for <>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.685
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QCHez-85r5jq for <>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C393A69EA for <>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU109-W21 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:16:07 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU109-W21D5DD79C9DCBD5D35FCCCB3210@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_4ccae1bb-2252-4ea7-b5b6-9b363369e025_"
X-Originating-IP: []
From: CE Whitehead <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:16:07 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2009 23:16:07.0313 (UTC) FILETIME=[65D3D810:01CA066B]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:15:36 -0000


From: Peter Constable <petercon at> 

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:55:38 -0700 

> I believe I wrote several years back that it is not a good idea to try to define language entities 
> in terms of their boundaries – or, by implication, by their extents (geographical or otherwise). > Rather, they should be defined in terms of prototypes – the representative centers. 
> (Cf, p. 12ff.)

Hmm, yes, fine with me, but even pinpointing the centers gets tough; see the following dialect map of U.S. English:


You'll see more dots (and hence more density) between NYC and Boston for almost every single pronunciation, I think, even for the pronunciations "you all" and "y'all" (the exception is the pronunciation of "aunt" like "ain't" which seems to be distinctly Southern).  (The excessive dots in the NE are probably the result of the large number of people living in the New York/Northeast area.)

Still I think most U.S. speakers recognize "y'all" and "you all" as Southern, even if the use of these is now more frequent near NYC and the surrounding area.  Of course, many of us actually speak a varied dialect (my aunt and mother from Massachusetts use Southern English most of the time as they live now in the South--but then when you introduce a little-used word such as "saw horse," they'll finally figure out that you mean a "sar hoss" [a pronuncation typical of Fitchburg, MA]).


In any case, I like building on our existing BP-47 system for now, with its geographic subtags for now (though we can consider geographic variants too).  I'm not against the assignment of systematic variants, but I like Doug's proposal for "written" and "spoken"--it's worth considering (Jack Goody, 1987, "The Interface Between the Written and the Oral," would like it).  These my thoughts for now on this.  




C. E. Whitehead