Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Armenian (was: Re: ISO 639-3 changes, part 3)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 13:05:13 -0700

I don't personally need to relitigate the RA's decision that WA is a
different enough language from EA to justify a separate code element.

I just need to know whether one, both, or neither of the variant subtags
for Armenian is to be deprecated, so I can prepare and post forms.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:42:15 +0100

> for Armenian is to be deprecated, so I can prepare and post forms.

  Right.  Sorry I contributed to revive that discussion.  For what it’s
worth, I think it makes most sense to

  1. Deprecate arevmda with a pointer to hyw
  2. Leave arevela as it is.

  (I think that’s what you were leaning towards in the first place.)

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:53:46 +0000

arevmda should certainly be deprecated with a pointer to hyw.

That makes arevela redundant, since hy and hye/arm are Eastern Armenian. 

Hm, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language hye is “Modern Armenian” in 639-3. But Ethnologue just lists “Armenian” for hy and hye/arm. Same at https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/langcodes_name.php?code_ID=26

> On 8 Mar 2018, at 18:42, Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 22:35:41 +0100

> That makes arevela redundant, since hy and hye/arm are Eastern Armenian. 

  Are they?

> Hm

  Exactly.

> according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language hye is “Modern Armenian” in 639-3. But Ethnologue just lists “Armenian” for hy and hye/arm. Same at https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/langcodes_name.php?code_ID=26

  The Wikipedia article is justified in adding “Modern”, since ISO 639-3
contains codes for Middle and Classical Armenian ([axm] and [xcl]
respectively), which -2 does not.  But whether or not hye/arm could mean
Classical or Middle Armenian in ISO 639-2 is irrelevant to the present
discussion (and a little silly).  What is clear if you have access to
the full Ethnologue database is that [hye] covers both Eastern and
Western Armenian.  From the 20th print edition, p. 359 of “Africa and
Europe”:

	Armenian [hye] A language of Armenia.  Total users in all
	countries: 5,169,640 ... Eastern Armenian (4,341,000) in Armenia
	and its Turkish and Iranian borderlands; Western Armenian
	(879,612) used elsewhere and only understood by some in Iran, etc.

  I do note that in the online edition of Ethnologue, Eastern Armenian
is listed as an alternate name (if you have page views left you can see
it at http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hye).  This
does however not seem very tangible evidence that [hye] only covers
Eastern Armenian since the description contains the text quoted above.

  (You’ll note that the numbers of speakers are not completely
consistent.)

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:55:47 +0000

In our proposal we noted that the ISO 639-5 code “hyx” exists for “Armenian (family)”. I would recommend this be the “macro-language” (since it can hardly refer to anything else). I think that the national language of modern Armenia is hy/hye/arm, though of course many hyw texts would have been filed under those since there was now hyw before now. And the same would be for the older edition of the Ethnologue, but disunification brings with it such things. That’s normal.

I don’t know who decides this one. I can easily decide to deprecate arevmda in favour of hyw. I would be inclined to deprecate arevela under the terms listed above unless there is some reason not to.

> On 8 Mar 2018, at 21:35, Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> respectively), which -2 does not.  

Except both Eastern and Western Armenian are modern. And there does exist hyx.

> But whether or not hye/arm could mean

I don’t suppose that description is normative.

Michael

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:25:16 +0100

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:55:47PM +0000, Michael Everson wrote:
> I don’t know who decides this one.

  But you do agree that up to now, [hy] in the IANA registry has meant
both Western and Eastern Armenian?

> I don’t suppose that description is normative.

  Maybe not; however it could still be used to determine the scope of
[hye] (since we don’t have much else to go on).

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 00:47:57 +0000

> both Western and Eastern Armenian?

Irrelevant. Western could not have been described by anything else. 

> [hye] (since we don’t have much else to go on).

I don’t find this speculation helpful. You are only asking the same questions. Do you have an opinion?

M

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:14:28 +0100

> Irrelevant. Western could not have been described by anything else. 

  Of course it could have; by [hyx], for example.

  And it is very relevant to determine whether [hy] encompasses both
Western and Eastern Armenian, or just the latter.  If it is both, then
it may not be narrowed, by BCP 47 rules, and -arevela is thus necessary
to those users wanting a tag for Eastern Armenian specifically.

> I don’t find this speculation helpful. You are only asking the same questions. Do you have an opinion?

  It is not speculation and I’m not asking questions, except above when
I asked you if you agreed with my opinion, which is, as already stated:
“Leave arevela as it is”.

  (If you didn’t realise I had an opinion, what were you arguing
against?)

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:51:17 -0500

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Arthur Reutenauer <
[email-masked]> wrote:

'hyx' is not a language code (it represents the Armenic language family,
just as 'gem' represents the Germanic language family), and like other
639-5 codes, it cannot be used as a BCP 47 language tag.  If the RA decides
to create a macrolanguage code for Armenian (macrolanguage), that's another
matter, but they haven't done so.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master.
Some
reward you have earned at least.  Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his
bargains.
I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your
faithful
service.  --Gandalf

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:11:18 -0700

John Cowan wrote:

> 'hyx' is not a language code (it represents the Armenic language
> family, just as 'gem' represents the Germanic language family), and
> like other 639-5 codes, it cannot be used as a BCP 47 language tag.

Of course it (and they) can:

Type: language
Subtag: hyx
Description: Armenian (family)
Added: 2009-07-29
Scope: collection

Whether it's a good idea to use subtags based on collection codes in 
language tags is another question. For most, it's not; this may be one 
of the few exceptions.

> If the RA decides to create a macrolanguage code for Armenian
> (macrolanguage), that's another matter, but they haven't done so.

True, and even though we are generally using "macrolanguage" in its 
correct 639-3 sense here -- sometimes considered to be a single 
language, sometimes more than one -- I hope we all continue to be very 
careful with it. It is a 639-3/RA classification and only the RA can 
make the decision. Collection codes in general are not macrolanguages.

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 03:16:25 +0100

> 639-5 codes, it cannot be used as a BCP 47 language tag.

  Really?  I can’t find anything about it in RFC 5646; -5 code elements
are mentioned explicitly as primary language subtags in section 2.2.1.
They can’t be extlangs, though.  In any case, [hyx] is present in the
language subtag registry, with the description “Armenian (family)”.

>                                                           If the RA decides

  (Michael seems to have pre-empted their decision, by the way.)

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:26:53 -0700

> I don’t know who decides this one.

You do. We are talking about variants, a BCP 47 invention not dependent 
on any external standard.

> I can easily decide to deprecate arevmda in favour of hyw. I would be
> inclined to deprecate arevela under the terms listed above unless
> there is some reason not to.

Here's my reason: The fact that we are right now debating whether 'hy' 
has always meant both Western and Eastern Armenian, or whether it has 
only ever meant Eastern and there was never any way to tag Western, 
should show the potential for confusion that the variant 'arevela' can 
help alleviate.

"hyw" - means Western only

"hy" - should now be used to mean Eastern only, but may have been used 
in the past for Western as well, and may still continue be used that way 
by some

"hy-arevmda" - means Western; no longer needed now that "hyw" exists; 
should be deprecated

"hy-arevela" - means Eastern; could be useful to resolve possible 
continuing ambiguity of "hy"; recommend leaving this one alone

In a world where people continue to write "ja-JP", I think "hy-arevela" 
is fairly harmless.

My 0.02 ֏,

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 22:54:59 -0500

Yes, I was wrong to say that 639-5 codes are not usable.  However, they are
certainly not advisable.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Arthur Reutenauer <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> >                                                           If the RA
> decides

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:27:53 +0000

hy.wikipedia.org has hitherto been used for both, but those articles written in Western have been explicitly marked and will ALL be moved to the new hyw.wikipedia.org

I expect the same would hold true for other applications, whether bibliographical or terminological or in software like localizations or CLDR.

hy-arevela might be harmless but I don’t see the merit in retaining it.

> On 9 Mar 2018, at 02:26, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Michael Everson wrote:
> 
> You do. We are talking about variants, a BCP 47 invention not dependent on any external standard.
> 
> Here's my reason: The fact that we are right now debating whether 'hy' has always meant both Western and Eastern Armenian, or whether it has only ever meant Eastern and there was never any way to tag Western, should show the potential for confusion that the variant 'arevela' can help alleviate.
> 
> "hy" - should now be used to mean Eastern only, but may have been used in the past for Western as well, and may still continue be used that way by some
> 
> "hy-arevmda" - means Western; no longer needed now that "hyw" exists; should be deprecated
> 
> "hy-arevela" - means Eastern; could be useful to resolve possible continuing ambiguity of "hy"; recommend leaving this one alone
> 
> In a world where people continue to write "ja-JP", I think "hy-arevela" is fairly harmless.
> 
> My 0.02 ֏,

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:56:56 +0100

> hy.wikipedia.org has hitherto been used for both, but those articles written in Western have been explicitly marked and will ALL be moved to the new hyw.wikipedia.org

  Good for them.  I really mean it.

> I expect the same would hold true for other applications, whether bibliographical or terminological or in software like localizations or CLDR.

  You can’t just make that determination on behalf of other people.
Sorry, that’s too cavalier an approach.  However, you clearly don’t
think I’m being helpful at this point, so I’ll leave it at that.

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:54:09 +0000

>  Good for them.  I really mean it.

Yes, it’s very good for them.

>  You can’t just make that determination on behalf of other people.

Evidently I am supposed to. But as I have neither crystal ball nor telepathy any determination I make will be on behalf of… someone.

> Sorry, that’s too cavalier an approach.  

Please explain. 

> However, you clearly don’t

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth. 

Michael

---

From: Arthur Reutenauer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:51:45 +0100

> Yes, it’s very good for them.

  Sorry, I should have added the relevant bit: not every project will
be ready for retagging.  We have to assume that existing content in
Western Armenian will continue to be tagged as [hy] indefinitely.

> Evidently I am supposed to. But as I have neither crystal ball nor telepathy any determination I make will be on behalf of… someone.

  You’re not just making a decision, you are tying it to an assumption
that something will happen to use the new code element in all the
projects that need it.  I don’t see that happening, and even if we could
be sure it would, I don’t think it would justify deprecating -arevela.

>> Sorry, that’s too cavalier an approach.  

  See above: it’s not appropriate to justify a change in meaning of an
existing subtag by the fact that content will be retagged in a specific
project, especially if that’s the project that’s on your radar.  We have
established that content exists in Western Armenian that is tagged as
[hy]; it is a legitimate use: the subtag clearly is related, it is not
for a completely different language, or private use, or a made-up
unassigned one.  Deprecating -arevela would leave a vacuum for people
wanting to explicitly tag Eastern Armenian.

>> think I’m being helpful at this point, so I’ll leave it at that.

  Well, that’s the feeling I was getting.

	Best,

		Arthur

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:07:49 +0000

Strong agreement. (I think it were better had collection IDs never been permitted.)

Peter

From: Ietf-languages <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:55 PM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Armenian (was: Re: ISO 639-3 changes, part 3)

Yes, I was wrong to say that 639-5 codes are not usable.  However, they are certainly not advisable.

        Best,

                Arthur

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:17:18 +0100

I approve the two proposals. 

Michael Everson