Subject: [Ltru] Extlang stability (was: extlang)

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:41:55 +0200

John Cowan wrote (2007-06-20):

> Peter Constable scripsit:
 
>> Is there a possibility of an encompassed language getting changed not
>> to be encompassed? If "xxx" is a macrolanguage and "yyy" an encompassed
>> "microlanguage" (to use Mark's term), I could perhaps see "xxx"
>> getting deprecated, but "yyy" getting dissociated from "xxx"? It
>> really shouldn't happen: there should have been *some* good reason
>> for associated "yyy" with "xxx" in the first place, and that shouldn't
>> go away.
 
> Human error would be the obvious candidate.  "Oh, we thought Foovian
> was part of the Slobbovian macrolanguage, but that was because Dr. X
> put the wrong code on the form back in 2008."

Okay, the type "extlang" vs. "language" should be stable.  What if new
subsets are introduced ?  Example:

>From xx-aaa xx-aab xx-aac xx-bbb to xx-aaa xx-aaa-aab xx-aaa-aac xx-bbb

We can't change the "prefix", but we could change the "macrolanguage",
resulting in:

%% Orginal               %% Updated
Extlang:      aac        Extlang:       aac
Prefix:       xx         Prefix:        xx 
Macolanguage: xx         Macrolanguage: aaa

The "extlang" concept is messier than "Suppress-Script", isn't it ?

Frank 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:00:51 -0400

> The "extlang" concept is messier than "Suppress-Script", isn't it ?

It is not, particularly because the work has been done for us by
an ISO RA.  The trouble with Suppress-Script: is that we, the IETF,
invented it ourselves, but don't have the resources to follow through.

-- 
John Cowan  <[email-masked]>  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
                --Albert Einstein

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:00:13 -0700

I disagree. The base information of whether an instance of written language
is in a given script is pretty clear, and the number of scripts are quite
bounded. While it may take some effort to determine whether a script is in
overwhelming usage for a language, it is a relatively straightforward task.

On the other hand, the boundaries between languages (languages vs dialects
and so on) are always the subject of dispute. According to a conversation
with Ken Whistler, there is a considerable controversy among the linguistics
community over the language model used in SIL which then went into 639-3.
Now, this is not at all to say that they did a bad job -- they did a great
job, especially with the huge number of languages that they had to deal with
-- however, it is inherently a much more difficult task. And the whole
notion of macrolanguage is not something that exists "in the wild"; it is a
construct designed to enable certain usage patterns -- and it is up to us to
determine whether it fits best in 4646bis as the Macrolanguage: field or
hard-wired into extlang.

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:25:31 +0200

> invented it ourselves, but don't have the resources to follow through.

IBTD, we invented the rigid and awkward extlang syntax, not ISO.  And
we want "stable forever" tags.  With the "Macrolanguage" construct the
relevant info is in the registry, not in the tag.  The registry can be
updated, e.g. replacing Macrolanguage "xx" by "aaa" in my example if
ISO rearranges one set (xx-aaa, xx-aab, xx-aac, xx-bbb) into two sets
(xx-aaa, xx-aaa-aab, xx-aaa-aac) plus (xx-bbb).

Wrt the resources, I've no clue why e.g. (no, nb, nn) or (bs, hr, sr,
sh) are recognized sets, while (de, gsw, nds) or similar groups aren't
identified as related.  It appears to be inconsistent.  But as long as
those sets are only identified in the registry, not in the tags, it's
no serious problem to split, join, add, or remove sets later.

Maybe we should limit the "extlang" business to sgn-* as a special
non-Macrolanguage set.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:20:26 -0400

> overwhelming usage for a language, it is a relatively straightforward task.
c
If it's so straightforward, why has nobody done it?  We have some
Suppress-Script entries for 639-2 languages, but by no means all,
and the 639-3-only set is going to make the job ten times bigger.

> community over the language model used in SIL which then went into 639-3.

It doesn't matter to us, the IETF; we are committed to doing whatever
639 does.

> determine whether it fits best in 4646bis as the Macrolanguage: field or

That's why I'm proposing making the macrolanguage information fully
available in the Macrolanguage: header, as mutable as SIL decides it
needs to be, and then using the current state (plus the sign
language case) for use in the extlang pattern.  We have macrolanguages
at all because of the vagaries of 639-2, but 639-2 is our core
language set: we can't just deprecate all those languages in favor
of obligatorily precise tagging.

-- 
No,  John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous      [email-masked]
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:24:13 -0400

> no serious problem to split, join, add, or remove sets later.

Which is why I agree that the Macrolanguage: header is a Good Thing.
The argument for extlang subtags (other than sign languages) is as a
shim between 639-2 and 639-3 and nothing else.

-- 
Not to perambulate                 John Cowan <[email-masked]>
    the corridors                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
during the hours of repose
    in the boots of ascension.       --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:42 -0700

First, I don't want to belabor the point about scripts, but it is easy to
recognize when a particular language is written in a script. The harder part
is determining usage. That is different from the language case, where as you
know the boundaries between languages are *FAR* less well defined; as you go
from one village to another you get accumulating differences that finally at
some point you say constitute separate languages.

As to macrolanguage, it appears that we are in general consensus on the
usefulness of having the Macrolanguage field in the registry.

The open issue is whether we also bake it into the extlang structure. I'm
hoping that in the telecon we can make some progress on resolving that
issue.

Mark

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:17:31 -0400

> some point you say constitute separate languages.

All that's quite true, but I was making a different point, a procedural one.
The ISO 639/RAs are in the business of making decisions about languages,
so we (ietf-languages, specifically) need not be.  Suppress-Script is
IETF-specific, but nobody has stepped forward with the resources to make
the decisions and (even more important) to review them.

> usefulness of having the Macrolanguage field in the registry.

+1

> hoping that in the telecon we can make some progress on resolving that

+1

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    [email-masked]
Economists were put on this planet to make astrologers look good.
        --Leo McGarry