Subject: [Ietf-languages] LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

From: Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 10:57:15 +0300

1. Name of requester: Leonid Soshinsky
2. E-mail address of requester: [email-masked]
3. Record Requested:

   Type:        variant
   Subtag:      pre1910
   Description: Latvian language in the old orthography used before 1910s
("vecā druka" in Latvian)
   Prefix:      lv
   Comments:    The subtag represents the old orthography of Latvian
language used during c. 1600s–1920s. It was first described in 1863
by August Bielenstein in his book "Die lettische Sprache, nach ihren Lauten
und Formen". The orthography has been been official for Latvian language
till new orthography was approved in 1908 and fully adopted in 1930.

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

   The old orthography of Latvian language used during c. 1600–1920s

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
    -- Pēteris Vanags. LATVIEŠU VALODA PIRMS LATVIJAS VALSTS (link:
https://www.president.lv/storage/kcfinder/files/VVK_Raksti%2C_10._sejuma_fails.pdf
)
    -- August Bielenstein. Die lettische Sprache, nach ihren Lauten und
Formen -- Riga: 1863–1864
    -- Rīgas Latviešu biedrības Zinību Komisijas Ortogrāfijas Komisija.
«Uzaicinājums latviešu pareizrakstības reformas lietā» – 1908. – Nr. 263. –
12. (25.) nov.
    -- Ina Druviete. „Kārlis Mīlenbahs”, -- Riga: Zinātne, 1990 (chapter
"Vienotai rakstībai un izrunai", link:
http://www.vvk.lv/index.php?sadala=192&id=620)

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:37:11 -0400

The applicability of the date seems a little vague, as if the transition
happened in 1910.  How about "vecaa"?  The "aa" represents the long "a" of
the proper "ā" letter, which cannot be used in subtags.  It also makes the
subtag 5 letters long: "veca" would be incorrect because it looks like a
script subtag (though there is currently no such subtag).

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:45 AM Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

---

From: Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:37:09 +0300

It was not actually an exact date, since newspapers were very reluctant to
change the orthography to a new one. And some newspapers switched only in
20s.
I wouldn't prefer the "vecaa" tag, because it just makes it "the old" (if
translated) deconstructs the idiom "vecā druka". I think, the tag
"vecaadruka" would be 100% recognizable by any Latvian. Is it an accepted
convention to use words from the respective language for the subtags
("rozaj" for Resian, "arevmda" for Western Armenian, etc.)? Because in the
beginning I was thinking of using a subtag in English ("pre1910").

Another question:
* should a separate variant be created for the contemporary orthography of
the Latvian language?
* also, on 5 June 1946, some letters were removed from the alphabet by the
orthographic reform (CH replaced with H, Ō with O, Ŗ with R). Should the
types before and after reform to be registered as well?

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:08:27 -0400

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:37 PM Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> "vecaadruka" would be 100% recognizable by any Latvian.
>

Unfortunately, it's too long: the maximum length is 8 characters.  That's
why I suggested what seemed to be the most important word.

> Is it an accepted convention to use words from the respective language for
> the subtags ("rozaj" for Resian, "arevmda" for Western Armenian, etc.)?
> Because in the beginning I was thinking of using a subtag in English
> ("pre1910").
>

It is an accepted, but not a universal, convention to use words from the
language, since they are unambiguous (unlike, say, "veryold").
 Date-marked orthographies certainly exist, for example for German, but in
that case there are definite dates when the new orthography went into
effect for public purposes, though private enterprise may take years to
change.  With Latvian being a submerged language under the Prussians, the
Commonwealth, and the Russian Empire, I suppose there are no such "official
dates" until Soviet times.  (The Prussians, as you probably know, referred
to Latvian as "Undeutsch".)

> * should a separate variant be created for the contemporary orthography of

If, as I suppose, most written works are in that variant, then probably
not.  If they are coexisting, perhaps so.  Is the old orthography still in
use in the Latvian diaspora?

> types before and after reform to be registered as well?

It's a question of need: is there a need to distinguish?  Is the pre-1946
orthography readily readable to Latvians today?

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
A witness cannot give evidence of his age unless he can remember being born.
                --Judge Blagden

---

From: Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 21:01:55 +0300

Well, if 8 characters is completely unavoidable, then we might try a
makeshift compound word "vecdruka" (similar to those that are used in
German), although "vecdruka" is almost never used
<https://www.google.com/search?&q="vecdruka"> in Latvian. But it would be
recognizable and understandable and I think, an acceptable way to shorten
it in these circumstances.

Strictly speaking:
I. pre1910s (vecā druka) is not used anymore
II. pre1946 is still used by some in Latvain diaspora (not sure about
newspapers)
III. post1946 is a dominating variant

> Is the pre-1946 orthography readily readable to Latvians today?
II and III are very similar and some young Latvians might not see the
difference at once. That is because only 3 letters were removed.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 20:08, John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Is it an accepted convention to use words from the respective language
>> for the subtags ("rozaj" for Resian, "arevmda" for Western Armenian, etc.)?
>> * should a separate variant be created for the contemporary orthography
>> of the Latvian language?
>>
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 14:19:58 -0400

Looks good to me.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:02 PM Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22vecdruka%22> in Latvian. But it
> would be recognizable and understandable and I think, an acceptable way to
> shorten it in these circumstances.
>
> Strictly speaking:
>> * also, on 5 June 1946, some letters were removed from the alphabet by
>>> the orthographic reform (CH replaced with H, Ō with O, Ŗ with R). Should
>>> the types before and after reform to be registered as well?
>>>
>>

---

From: Lenny Soshinskiy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 21:22:42 +0300

Good. Thank you for your clarifications.

Do I understand correctly, that new subtags are added in batches once every
2 months or so? Where may I see the subtags sorted by newest?

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:20, John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> I wouldn't prefer the "vecaa" tag, because it just makes it "the old"
>>>> (if translated) deconstructs the idiom "vecā druka". I think, the tag
>>> Unfortunately, it's too long: the maximum length is 8 characters.
>>> That's why I suggested what seemed to be the most important word.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a question of need: is there a need to distinguish?  Is the
>>> pre-1946 orthography readily readable to Latvians today?
>>>
>>>
>>>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:04 -0600

Lenny Soshinsk(i)y wrote:

 �

> ("vecā druka" in Latvian)

 �

> language used during c. 1600s–1920s. It was first described in 1863 by

> August Bielenstein in his book "Die lettische Sprache, nach ihren

> Lauten und Formen". The orthography has been been official for Latvian

> language till new orthography was approved in 1908 and fully adopted

> in 1930.

 �

I'm not the Reviewer, but I would prefer to see these two values shortened substantially.

 �

The Description field should be suitable for use in a list of variant subtags presented in a UI. The Comments field, if present, should provide additional information that is necessary to distinguish the variant from others. Neither is intended to be encyclopedic; that's what item 6 on the registration form, "Any other relevant information" (omitted from this form) is for. The registration forms are archived at IANA (see URL below) for those who need this information.

 �

Despite the exhaustive detail proposed for these Description and Comments fields, I'm still left wondering whether the old orthography was superseded in 1908, 1910, "1920s", or 1930. That is a strong hint that none of those years should be part of the subtag value, as Lenny and John Cowan agreed later.

 �

John replied:

 �

> The applicability of the date seems a little vague, as if the

> transition happened in 1910.  How about "vecaa"?  The "aa" represents

> the long "a" of the proper "ā" letter, which cannot be used in

> subtags.  It also makes the subtag 5 letters long: "veca" would be

> incorrect because it looks like a script subtag (though there is

> currently no such subtag).

 �

Specifically, a variant subtag must be 5 to 8 characters long, or 4 if it begins with a digit (but those normally represent a year, and that's already been discussed). I know John knows this; this information is for Lenny.

 �

Lenny responded:

 �

> It was not actually an exact date, since newspapers were very

> reluctant to change the orthography to a new one. And some newspapers

> switched only in 20s.

 �

No orthographic reform happens immediately everywhere. As John pointed out, for those that already have variant subtags that reference a year, it is usually the publication date of a formal decree, a normative dictionary, or at least a representative work of literature. '1910' here feels more like a guess.

 �

> "vecaadruka" would be 100% recognizable by any Latvian.

 �

But, unfortunately, not syntactically allowable.

 �

> * should a separate variant be created for the contemporary

> orthography of the Latvian language?

> * also, on 5 June 1946, some letters were removed from the alphabet

> by the orthographic reform (CH replaced with H, Ō with O, Ŗ with R).

> Should the types before and after reform to be registered as well?

 �

We should wait for the Reviewer to decide, but as John said, these should probably not be registered unless there is a real need to tag the data with this information.

 �

> German), although "vecdruka" is almost never used in Latvian. But it

> would be recognizable and understandable and I think, an acceptable

> way to shorten it in these circumstances.

 �

It doesn't have to be an actual word. "fonkirsh" is not an English word; it is a Newspeak-like identifier meant to represent "Kirshenbaum Phonetic Alphabet." Such is life when identifiers have a tight length constraint. 

 �

> Do I understand correctly, that new subtags are added in batches once

> every 2 months or so?

 �

No, that implies a certain regularity of process and volume of requests, neither of which exists.

 �

Most subtags are requested, considered, and approved (or not) one by one. They are only batched together if there is some relationship that requires them to be considered together, such as with the Occitan variants, or for convenience if multiple requests are submitted almost simultaneously.

 �

> Where may I see the subtags sorted by newest?

 �

The IANA page showing the registration forms is located here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/lang-subtags-templates.xhtml

 �

and the list can be sorted by date.

 �

Note that this list contains nearly 1,200 registration forms, but the majority of these are pro-forma registrations that reflect changes in one of the core (ISO or UN) standards. Some registration forms are for modifications or deletions of existing subtags. Where you see dozens of language subtags (usually three letters) processed on the same day, it's because of the annual cycle of ISO 639-3 changes.

 �

--

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

---

From: Hugh Paterson III <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:18:18 +0200

As I read this thread, and consider the following:
> these should probably not be registered unless there is a real need to
tag the data with this information.

I'm curious, what are some acceptable definitions/examples of "real need"?
what qualifies and what doesn't qualify?

learning,
Hugh Paterson III

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:13 AM Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The Description field should be suitable for use in a list of variant
> subtags presented in a UI. The Comments field, if present, should provide
> additional information that is necessary to distinguish the variant from
> others. Neither is intended to be encyclopedic; that's what item 6 on the
> registration form, "Any other relevant information" (omitted from this
> form) is for. The registration forms are archived at IANA (see URL below)
> for those who need this information.
>
>
>
> Despite the exhaustive detail proposed for these Description and Comments
> fields, I'm still left wondering whether the old orthography was superseded
> in 1908, 1910, "1920s", or 1930. That is a strong hint that none of those
> years should be part of the subtag value, as Lenny and John Cowan agreed
> later.
>
>
>
> John replied:
>
>
>
> Specifically, a variant subtag must be 5 to 8 characters long, or 4 if it
> begins with a digit (but those normally represent a year, and that's
> already been discussed). I know John knows this; this information is for
> Lenny.
>
>
>
> Lenny responded:
>
>
>
> No orthographic reform happens immediately everywhere. As John pointed
> out, for those that already have variant subtags that reference a year, it
> is usually the publication date of a formal decree, a normative dictionary,
> or at least a representative work of literature. '1910' here feels more
> like a guess.
>
>
>
> We should wait for the Reviewer to decide, but as John said, these should
> probably not be registered unless there is a real need to tag the data with
> this information.
>
>
>
> It doesn't have to be an actual word. "fonkirsh" is not an English word;
> it is a Newspeak-like identifier meant to represent "Kirshenbaum Phonetic
> Alphabet." Such is life when identifiers have a tight length constraint.
>
>
>
> Most subtags are requested, considered, and approved (or not) one by one.
> They are only batched together if there is some relationship that requires
> them to be considered together, such as with the Occitan variants, or for
> convenience if multiple requests are submitted almost simultaneously.
>
>
>
> Note that this list contains nearly 1,200 registration forms, but the
> majority of these are pro-forma registrations that reflect changes in one
> of the core (ISO or UN) standards. Some registration forms are for
> modifications or deletions of existing subtags. Where you see dozens of
> language subtags (usually three letters) processed on the same day, it's
> because of the annual cycle of ISO 639-3 changes.
>
>
>
> --
>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:13:36 -0600

Hugh Paterson III wrote:

>> these should probably not be registered unless there is a real need
>> to tag the data with this information.
>
> I'm curious, what are some acceptable definitions/examples of "real
> need"? what qualifies and what doesn't qualify?

This falls into the same category as the Suppress-Script thread from a few weeks ago, and may have been partly prompted by it.

Different people have different views on this, and in the end it's the Reviewer's opinion that matters. Here's mine:

"Real need" implies that you have, or someone has, or someone can reasonably envision (without stretching credulity too far) a need to tag linguistic content as to the language variety being discussed. That does not mean simply that the content happens to be in that variety, but that it is deemed necessary or desirable to point out that variety in the tag.

This is different from registering a subtag simply to document, in the Language Subtag Registry, that a variety exists. That is not the purpose of the Registry.

Currently, Lenny Soshinskiy has proposed a variant subtag for a largely pre-20th-century orthography of Latvian that differs substantially from the modern one. The presumption, in considering this request, is that Lenny or someone would like to use a BCP 47 tag to indicate that some content is in the old orthography, or can reasonably envision needing this capability in the future, not merely to record the existence of the old orthography. This seems (always IMHO) like a good reason to add a subtag.

There is a question whether the existing orthography, the one used to write 99.99999% of modern Latvian (probably not enough 9's), should also have a subtag, so content in that orthography can be identified. This would be appropriate if there is some reason to call attention to the use of modern orthography. Normally there isn't, but readers of my comments about Suppress-Script a few weeks ago will remember that it might occasionally be necessary, i.e. to explicitly tag two contrasting varieties.

There is another question whether an intermediate orthography, very similar to the current one but with three "old" letters that have since been replaced, should also have a subtag. The same criterion would apply here as for the pre-20th-century orthography: is there an actual need or desire to point out the variety as part of the tag? That doesn't necessary follow just because the content happens to be in that variety.

By analogy, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as originally printed by John Dunlap [1], happens to contain a lot of capitalized nouns, the style of the day. That characteristic does not necessarily warrant a subtag. There's no particular need to use a BCP 47 tag to call attention to those capital letters.

I hope this helps, and again, ultimately it's Michael Everson who will make the determination.

[1] https://teachingamericanhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/3694394069_2d41fa536e_b.jpg

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:10:42 +0100

I like vecdruka well enough and agree with Doug that the Description need not be so complex.

Michael