Re: Armenian (was: Re: ISO 639-3 changes, part 3)

>> But you do agree that up to now, [hy] in the IANA registry has meant
>> both Western and Eastern Armenian?
> 
> Irrelevant. Western could not have been described by anything else. 

  Of course it could have; by [hyx], for example.

  And it is very relevant to determine whether [hy] encompasses both
Western and Eastern Armenian, or just the latter.  If it is both, then
it may not be narrowed, by BCP 47 rules, and -arevela is thus necessary
to those users wanting a tag for Eastern Armenian specifically.

>>  Maybe not; however it could still be used to determine the scope of
>> [hye] (since we don’t have much else to go on).
> 
> I don’t find this speculation helpful. You are only asking the same questions. Do you have an opinion?

  It is not speculation and I’m not asking questions, except above when
I asked you if you agreed with my opinion, which is, as already stated:
“Leave arevela as it is”.

  (If you didn’t realise I had an opinion, what were you arguing
against?)

	Best,

		Arthur

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