Re: [mo/mol] and [ro/ron/rum]

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 11:26:17 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: About UTS#6: SCSU - 10. Possible Private Extensions: why not a "COBS" TES?"

    Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

    >> Seeing that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian have been given their own
    >> separate ISO 639 codes, for almost purely political reasons (they are
    >> dialects), I doubt it's necessary to worry about erasing the
    >> political distinction between Romanian and Moldavian.
    > OK. For managing language resources, what ID should one use?

    I'd say that for legacy text, use whichever language ID the text was
    considered to have been written in at the time (preserving the
    "distinction," no matter how bogus).

    For current and future text, where there is a desire to regard the
    "languages" as one and the same, call it Romanian (reflecting the theory
    that Moldavian is considered the artificial entity and just another name
    for Romanian, not the other way around).

    The mutual intelligibility of ro and mo is orthogonal to this.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 11:30:31 CDT