Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] ISO TR 21636 Dimensions

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:48:58 -0700

Richard Wordingham wrote:
 
> On the other hand, BCP 47 can tempt one to some dubious practices. For
> example, I might tag Unicode-encoded Pali in the Tham script as
> pi-Lana-TH for material from Northern Thailand but as pi-Lana-LA
> for material from North-eastern Thailand. The latter may come unstuck
> for text to speech - I can imagine a Siamese accent being used in NE
> Thailand.
 
I know Richard knows this, but just as a reminder: "Region subtags are
used to indicate linguistic variations *associated with or appropriate
to* a specific country, territory, or region." They have nothing to do
with where the speaker, writer, signer, drummer, or whistler is actually
located. A Siamese accent could be used in Peru.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Richard Wordingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 06:40:41 +0000

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:48:58 -0700
"Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > On the other hand, BCP 47 can tempt one to some dubious practices.
> > For example, I might tag Unicode-encoded Pali in the Tham script as
> > for material from North-eastern Thailand. The latter may come
> > unstuck for text to speech - I can imagine a Siamese accent being
> > used in NE Thailand.  

> with where the speaker, writer, signer, drummer, or whistler is
> actually located. A Siamese accent could be used in Peru.

So if the form of the Tham script and its encoding appropriate to
Pali in the province of Udon Thani in Thailand is the same as the form
and encoding appropriate to Laos, and not the commonest form in
Thailand, is it indeed appropriate to tag it as pi-Lana-LA if one
considers only the written aspects?

As monks' formal examinations in Thailand are performed in Siamese, I
have a suspicion that Pali might be read out in Udon Thani with the same
pronunciation whichever script it is written in.  The dominant script
for Pali there will be the Thai script.  I've not noticed a Lao
pronunciation in the chants at our local temple (in England), rather a
Siamese pronunciation peeping through the European and Sri Lankan
pronunciations.

Richard.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:57:25 -0700

Richard Wordingham wrote:
 
>> I know Richard knows this, but just as a reminder: "Region subtags
>> are used to indicate linguistic variations *associated with or
>> appropriate to* a specific country, territory, or region." They have
>> nothing to do with where the speaker, writer, signer, drummer, or
>> whistler is actually located. A Siamese accent could be used in Peru.
>
> So if the form of the Tham script and its encoding appropriate to Pali
> in the province of Udon Thani in Thailand is the same as the form and
> encoding appropriate to Laos, and not the commonest form in Thailand,
> is it indeed appropriate to tag it as pi-Lana-LA if one considers only
> the written aspects?
 
Yes, I would think so, given the conditions you stated.
 
Tagging language usage by region at the granularity of entire countries certainly isn't perfect, but it's well established and very often good enough.
 
The 'u' extension does provide a way to tag at the level of national subdivisions, which I always wanted; you could write "pi-Lana-u-sd-th41" to pinpoint usage in Udon Thani. But this runs into the usual problem that not all tag-aware software understands extensions, especially the relatively new 'sd' key, and especially if Peter's perception that "the 'u' extension is primarily (solely?) used in connection with CLDR" is widely shared. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, "pi-Lana-u-sd-th41" loses the connection with common usage in Laos. This might be especially important for matching. So, probably not the best choice here.
 
--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org