Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:12:42 -0700

I personally believe the changes from actual Latin to Latino Sine Flexione are too great to consider the latter merely a variant of the former. But others can pick up that debate.

The form itself seems fine, except that the Description field should be capitalized, and "inflections" is a somewhat more common English spelling

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:44:52 -0500

I think "Interlingua de APL" and "Interlingua de Peano" should be added as
alternate descriptions.  Those names distinguish it from the later and more
popular Interlingua de IALA, whose subtag is 'ia'.  You could translate
these descriptions as "Interlingua (Academy for Interlingua)" and
"Interlingua (Peano)".  But since nobody calls it "Latin Without
Inflections", we might as well stick to endonyms that are actually in use.

Peano certainly intended it to be easy to read if you knew Latin or a major
Romance language, so I think calling it a dialect of Latin is fair.  In any
case, if we made it a separate language it would take a year to get past
the 639 RA, and if they rejected it we'd have to think about whether we
want to use our never-used power to add a language subtag on our own.

I think "la-peano" is very clear as a tag, though the Romans would
certainly have a fit about the language and maybe make us write "Romani,
ite domum" (instead of "Romanos, i ad domo") on the wall a hundred times.
("I" is irritatingly short for a Latin verb, which is why it has all kinds
of suppletive forms in the Romance languages taken from more reasonable
verbs.  Perhaps Peano should have special-cased it.)

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:20 AM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I personally believe the changes from actual Latin to Latino Sine Flexione
> are too great to consider the latter merely a variant of the former.. But
> others can pick up that debate.
>
> The form itself seems fine, except that the Description field should be
> capitalized, and "inflections" is a somewhat more common English spelling
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

---

From: "P. Masih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:54:44 +0100

Dear all,
Thank you for your answers and comments. I am glad to see that my proposal
is considered and has triggered a debate. Personally, I think Latino Sine
Flexione can be considered as being either a variant form of Latin or a
language of its own right, but ISO 639 maintenance agencies do not seem to
think so, so I considering it as a Latin variant is probably the less
complicated option.
I tried to rewrite the registration form in conformity with your remarks.
Is it better now ?

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: P. Masih

2. E-mail address of requester: [email-masked]

3. Record Requested:

Type: Variant

Subtag: peano

Description: Latino Sine Flexione

             (alternately Interlingua de API

              or Interlingua de Peano)

Prefix: la

Preferred-Value:

Deprecated:

Suppress-Script:

Comments: Peano’s Interlingua, created in 1903

by Giuseppe Peano as an international auxiliary language

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

Reference to the creator of the language, Giuseppe Peano

5. Reference to published description

of the language (book or article):

* Giuseppe Peano (1903), De Latino sine flexione, lingua auxiliare

internationale, in Revista de Mathematica:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35803/35803-h/35803-h.htm

* Manuale practico de interlingua (1913):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Manuale_Practico.pdf

*Giuseppe Peano (1915), Vocabulario commune ad Latino-Italiano-

Français-English-Deutsch:

https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/-1915-vocabulario-pre

* Key to Interlingua (1931):

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.165785/page/n1/mode/2up

* Daniele Gouthier, Nico Pitrelli and Ivan Pupolizio (2002),

Mathematicians and the perfect language: Giuseppe Peano’s case,

in Journal of Science Communication:

https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/jcom0101(2002)A03.pdf

* Vera Barandovska-Frank (2003), De Latino sine Flexione Centenario

also:

* http://nuntios.blogspot.com/search/label/Latino%20sine%20Flexione

* https://acproil.github.io/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione

* http://www.oocities.org/athens/olympus/2948/

* https://archive.org/search.php?query=latino%20sine%20flexione

6. Any other relevant information:

Not recognized as a full language by maintenance agencies of ISO 639.

See https://iso639-3.sil.org/request/2017-022

Le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 à 20:45, John Cowan <[email-masked]> a écrit :

> Peano certainly intended it to be easy to read if you knew Latin or a
> major Romance language, so I think calling it a dialect of Latin is fair.
> In any case, if we made it a separate language it would take a year to get
> past the 639 RA, and if they rejected it we'd have to think about whether
> we want to use our never-used power to add a language subtag on our own.
>
>> I personally believe the changes from actual Latin to Latino Sine
>> Flexione are too great to consider the latter merely a variant of the
>> former.. But others can pick up that debate.
>>