From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 30 2006 - 02:39:18 CST
On 30 Sep 2006, at 03:18, Jefsey_Morfin wrote:
> >>Ages are also important in languages, so are trades and
> >>contexts. In our computer assisted/man-machine relation, the genders
> >>"computer" and "agent" should be available. So we would often need
> >>singular, plural, networked.
> >I do not see what this has to to with characters for human physical
> Unicode's globalization doctrine (internationalization of the
> environment + localization of the edges) is stabilised by BCP 47 and
> RFC 4646 by Mark Davis and Addison Phillips; They provides a
> consistent language tagging [language, characters, region] for the
> environment (pages and protocols), localization (CLDR files), and
> language applications.
If you are saying that a more accurate classification of human sexes
should be a part of language localization, I do not know about that,
not being a linguist.
But the question of the difficulty to properly define human sexes
pops up in all kinds of contexts. One is the Olympic games, where
difficulty in defining male/female causes problems - there is no good
genetic definition to cover all cases, and what really matters is
probably the levels of hormones such as testosterone.
And it is no funny for the individuals that are left out in the cold
by the traditional male/female only classification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 02:45:14 CST