Re: ISO 639-3 language codes posted

David Starner wrote:

> Louisiana Spanish would need a separate tag; I don't think even
> subnational territory codes would be appropriate here, given that the
> dialects of Spanish spoken most commonly in Louisiana are probably
> more related to es-MX (and es-CU, maybe?) than to these native
> dialects. I'm not even sure they should be one tag, given the change
> request says "Autonym (self-name) for this language:
> Two separate, unrelated varieties: (1) Adaeseño/Adaesano (2) Isleño".

"Unrelated" does raise a red flag. There are other curious statements in
this proposal, such as the claim that standard Spanish has changed so
dramatically since the 18th century that speakers of Louisiana Spanish
can no longer read or write it.

Some of the requests contain unsupported assertions that make it unclear
whether the requested "language" is even a dialect. Encouraging the
requesters to apply here for a variant subtag might not be very
fruitful.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages