From: E . A . Zen (ericzen@ez-net.com)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 23:14:42 EDT
On 2002.10.21 13:04 David Chart wrote:
>
> The problem with historical languages is that you need to specify a time
> as well. For example, en-GB-1600 is rather different from en-GB-2002
> (have a look at Shakespeare). A dictionary based on a renaissance
> mathematician is one historical slice of Latin, and different from
> la-GB-1400, as well as from la-IT-1100.
>
> Until ISO get this sorted out, which I suppose might happen, I suggest
> that we avoid using kludges to handle dead languages and historical
> versions of living languages.
>
> (Although the ability to set my locale to en-GB-1600 would be rather
> cool -- 'Thou hast changed thy document. Dost thou wish to retain thy
> changes on disk?')
>
> --
> David Chart
> http://www.dchart.demon.co.uk/
The mass complexity of languages, be as organic as they are, still results in
many problems. Language, Locale, Dialect, Subvariant and Age are all
necessary. If SIL International has a set of public standards for breakdown
(other than the anthropology section), it would probably be more beneficial to
move to SIL, despite risk of non-compliance to ISO.
Either that, or we send Andrew to some of these barely-existent meetings and
see if we get anything out of it.
-Zen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 23:22:40 EDT