Re: Language Subtag Registration

Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:

> The registration makes the claim that Philadelphia English is "not a
> simple accent or set of colloquialisms", but then provides evidence
> that suggests just the opposite. No source has been provided that
> supports the notion that Philadelphia English is any more than a
> distinctive collection of phonological patterns and lexicon,

Nick, can you provide references that show that Philadelphia English is 
more than an accent and a regional vocabulary? For example, are there 
any grammatical or syntactical differences?

As Gordon points out, differences in accent and regionalisms are 
prevalent throughout U.S. English, and aren't normally considered 
"taggable differences," such that a distinct language tag would serve a 
practical purpose in identification. This was the main reason I didn't 
propose Pittsburgh English after all.

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