Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [volapuk] Re: Language variant taggin g and Volapük

Expand Messages
  • Michael Everson
    ... Three- and four-letter extensions are not permitted (3-letter extensions must be ISO 639 language codes (like sco in en-sco-ulster for Ulster Scots), and
    Message 1 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 11 Jan 2012, at 14:12, Wolfe wrote:

      > I think they should probably be as short as possible. Why not vo-jley and vo-jong? Or simply vo-old and vo-new?

      Three- and four-letter extensions are not permitted (3-letter extensions must be ISO 639 language codes (like "sco" in en-sco-ulster for Ulster Scots), and 4-letter extensions must be ISO 15924 script codes (vo-Cyrl would be Volapük in Cyrillic).

      Thus jleyer/dejong and rigik/nulik are valid. There is also nothing in principle to require that the two sets be the same length, so schleyer/dejong would be valid, but I like them when they're the same length.

      Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
    • Wolfe
      In which case, vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are okay. Replacing sch in Schleyer with a j seems a weird, though. If we want equal length, why not vo-schley and
      Message 2 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        In which case, vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are okay. Replacing "sch" in Schleyer with a "j" seems a weird, though. If we want equal length, why not vo-schley and vo-dejong?

        I'm not sure which I like better; both seem slightly awkward.

        --- In volapuk@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 11 Jan 2012, at 14:12, Wolfe wrote:
        >
        >> I think they should probably be as short as possible. Why not vo-jley and vo-jong? Or simply vo-old and vo-new?
        >
        > Three- and four-letter extensions are not permitted (3-letter extensions must be ISO 639 language codes (like "sco" in en-sco-ulster for Ulster Scots), and 4-letter extensions must be ISO 15924 script codes (vo-Cyrl would be Volapük in Cyrillic).
        >
        > Thus jleyer/dejong and rigik/nulik are valid. There is also nothing in principle to require that the two sets be the same length, so schleyer/dejong would be valid, but I like them when they're the same length.
        >
        > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
        >
      • Wolfe Padawer
        I didn t know Jleyer was also a spelling. With that knowledge, I think vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are the best choices.
        Message 3 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I didn't know Jleyer was also a spelling. With that knowledge, I think vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are the best choices.

          On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:04:11 -0700, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

          > On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:51, Wolfe wrote:
          >
          >> In which case, vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are okay. Replacing "sch" in Schleyer with a "j" seems a weird, though. If we want equal length, why not vo-schley and vo-dejong?
          >
          > The form Jleyer was used in some publications in the 19th century.
          >
          >> I'm not sure which I like better; both seem slightly awkward.
          >
          > Well, there's vo-rigik and vo-nulik.
          >
          > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
          >
        • Michael Everson
          ... The form Jleyer was used in some publications in the 19th century. ... Well, there s vo-rigik and vo-nulik. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
          Message 4 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:51, Wolfe wrote:

            > In which case, vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are okay. Replacing "sch" in Schleyer with a "j" seems a weird, though. If we want equal length, why not vo-schley and vo-dejong?

            The form Jleyer was used in some publications in the 19th century.

            > I'm not sure which I like better; both seem slightly awkward.

            Well, there's vo-rigik and vo-nulik.

            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
          • Donald Gasper
            On the other hand, the spelling Schleyer is much more well known in the wider community. It seems weird to use j with the sound sh in one name but with
            Message 5 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On the other hand, the spelling "Schleyer" is much more well known in the wider community.

              It seems weird to use "j" with the sound "sh" in one name but with the sound "y" in the other.

              I prefer vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. No need for them to be of equal length.

              > To: everson@...
              > From: everson@...
              > Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:07:16 -0700
              > Subject: [volapuk] Re: Language variant tagging and Volapük
              >
              > I didn't know Jleyer was also a spelling. With that knowledge, I think vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are the best choices.
              >
              > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:04:11 -0700, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
              >
              > > On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:51, Wolfe wrote:
              > >
              > >> In which case, vo-jleyer and vo-dejong are okay. Replacing "sch" in Schleyer with a "j" seems a weird, though. If we want equal length, why not vo-schley and vo-dejong?
              > >
              > > The form Jleyer was used in some publications in the 19th century.
              > >
              > >> I'm not sure which I like better; both seem slightly awkward.
              > >
              > > Well, there's vo-rigik and vo-nulik.
              > >
              > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
              > >
              >

            • Michael Everson
              ... Well... I bet that the only people who would be tagging any data in any variety of Volapük are Volapükists and Esperantists. ;-) ... Noted. That s two
              Message 6 of 23 , Jan 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On 12 Jan 2012, at 00:49, Donald Gasper wrote:

                > On the other hand, the spelling "Schleyer" is much more well known in the wider community.

                Well... I bet that the only people who would be tagging any data in any variety of Volapük are Volapükists and Esperantists. ;-)

                > It seems weird to use "j" with the sound "sh" in one name but with the sound "y" in the other.
                >
                > I prefer vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. No need for them to be of equal length.

                Noted. That's two votes so far... Still looking for more opinions!

                Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
              • Michael Everson
                So far we don t have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation. Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication) Wolf Padawer
                Message 7 of 23 , Jan 12, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  So far we don't have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation.

                  Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication)

                  Wolf Padawer prefers vo-jleyer and vo-dejong

                  Don Gasper prefers vo-schleyer and vo-dejong

                  More opinions, please!

                  Michael

                  On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:38, Michael Everson wrote:

                  > As many of you know, Volapük has a two-letter ISO 639-1 code "vo" and a three letter ISO 639-2/639-3 code, "vol". There is an internet RFC which specifies the use of subtags in order to make precise (if necessary) which variety of language is being used, for instance, in a web page. Thus we can distinguish en-GB for British English and en-US for American English, and en-sco for Scots and en-sco-ulster for Ulster Scots.
                  >
                  > I recently proposed two tags for potential use for Volapük. (The usage is not obligatory.)
                  >
                  > vo-jleyer would be for "Volapük rigik" or "Schleyerian Volapük"
                  >
                  > vo-dejong would be for "Volapük nulik", "Volapük perevidöl", "Dejongian Volapük", "Modern Volapük"
                  >
                  > Questions have been raised:
                  >
                  > Why jleyer and not schleyer? (My answer was, I liked it that jleyer and dejong have the same number of letters)
                  >
                  > Why not "rigik" and "nulik"? My answer was:
                  >
                  >> But as most people don't know Volapük even if they know about it (many Esperantists know quite a lot about Volapük and its place in the history of international auxiliary languages) using "nulik" and "rigik" is not necessarily as transparent as referring to Schleyer (who devised the original version of Volapük) and de Jong (who revised Volapük), whose names are well known indeed. And people might get confused that "Volapük rigik" is sort of a Riksvolapük, and "Volapük nulik" as a sort of Nyvolapük.... ;-)
                  >
                  > So then I said I would ask people here on this list. And say, there are 185 people subscribed to this list, and I'd like to hear from more then four of you!

                  Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                • Hermann Philipps
                  I m for vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. These tags would pinpoint the two dialects to their exact origins. Hermann Philipps
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jan 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm for vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. These tags would pinpoint the two
                    dialects to their exact origins.

                    Hermann Philipps

                    Michael Everson schrieb:
                    >
                    >
                    > So far we don't have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation.
                    >
                    > Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication)
                    >
                    > Wolf Padawer prefers vo-jleyer and vo-dejong
                    >
                    > Don Gasper prefers vo-schleyer and vo-dejong
                    >
                    > More opinions, please!
                    >
                    > Michael
                    >
                    > On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:38, Michael Everson wrote:
                    >
                    > > As many of you know, Volapük has a two-letter ISO 639-1 code "vo" and
                    > a three letter ISO 639-2/639-3 code, "vol". There is an internet RFC
                    > which specifies the use of subtags in order to make precise (if
                    > necessary) which variety of language is being used, for instance, in a
                    > web page. Thus we can distinguish en-GB for British English and en-US
                    > for American English, and en-sco for Scots and en-sco-ulster for Ulster
                    > Scots.
                    > >
                    > > I recently proposed two tags for potential use for Volapük. (The
                    > usage is not obligatory.)
                    > >
                    > > vo-jleyer would be for "Volapük rigik" or "Schleyerian Volapük"
                    > >
                    > > vo-dejong would be for "Volapük nulik", "Volapük perevidöl",
                    > "Dejongian Volapük", "Modern Volapük"
                    > >
                    > > Questions have been raised:
                    > >
                    > > Why jleyer and not schleyer? (My answer was, I liked it that jleyer
                    > and dejong have the same number of letters)
                    > >
                    > > Why not "rigik" and "nulik"? My answer was:
                    > >
                    > >> But as most people don't know Volapük even if they know about it
                    > (many Esperantists know quite a lot about Volapük and its place in the
                    > history of international auxiliary languages) using "nulik" and "rigik"
                    > is not necessarily as transparent as referring to Schleyer (who devised
                    > the original version of Volapük) and de Jong (who revised Volapük),
                    > whose names are well known indeed. And people might get confused that
                    > "Volapük rigik" is sort of a Riksvolapük, and "Volapük nulik" as a sort
                    > of Nyvolapük.... ;-)
                    > >
                    > > So then I said I would ask people here on this list. And say, there
                    > are 185 people subscribed to this list, and I'd like to hear from more
                    > then four of you!
                    >
                    > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                    >
                    >
                  • Kevin Ring
                    I agree with Herman. On Thursday, January 12, 2012, Hermann Philipps ... I agree with Herman. On Thursday, January 12, 2012, Hermann
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jan 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I agree with Herman.

                      On Thursday, January 12, 2012, Hermann Philipps <hphilipps@...> wrote:
                      > I'm for vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. These tags would pinpoint the two
                      > dialects to their exact origins.
                      >
                      > Hermann Philipps
                      >
                      > Michael Everson schrieb:
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> So far we don't have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation.
                      >>
                      >> Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication)
                      >>
                      >> Wolf Padawer prefers vo-jleyer and vo-dejong
                      >>
                      >> Don Gasper prefers vo-schleyer and vo-dejong
                      >>
                      >> More opinions, please!
                      >>
                      >> Michael
                      >>
                      >> On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:38, Michael Everson wrote:
                      >>
                      >>  > As many of you know, Volapük has a two-letter ISO 639-1 code "vo" and
                      >> a three letter ISO 639-2/639-3 code, "vol". There is an internet RFC
                      >> which specifies the use of subtags in order to make precise (if
                      >> necessary) which variety of language is being used, for instance, in a
                      >> web page. Thus we can distinguish en-GB for British English and en-US
                      >> for American English, and en-sco for Scots and en-sco-ulster for Ulster
                      >> Scots.
                      >>  >
                      >>  > I recently proposed two tags for potential use for Volapük. (The
                      >> usage is not obligatory.)
                      >>  >
                      >>  > vo-jleyer would be for "Volapük rigik" or "Schleyerian Volapük"
                      >>  >
                      >>  > vo-dejong would be for "Volapük nulik", "Volapük perevidöl",
                      >> "Dejongian Volapük", "Modern Volapük"
                      >>  >
                      >>  > Questions have been raised:
                      >>  >
                      >>  > Why jleyer and not schleyer? (My answer was, I liked it that jleyer
                      >> and dejong have the same number of letters)
                      >>  >
                      >>  > Why not "rigik" and "nulik"? My answer was:
                      >>  >
                      >>  >> But as most people don't know Volapük even if they know about it
                      >> (many Esperantists know quite a lot about Volapük and its place in the
                      >> history of international auxiliary languages) using "nulik" and "rigik"
                      >> is not necessarily as transparent as referring to Schleyer (who devised
                      >> the original version of Volapük) and de Jong (who revised Volapük),
                      >> whose names are well known indeed. And people might get confused that
                      >> "Volapük rigik" is sort of a Riksvolapük, and "Volapük nulik" as a sort
                      >> of Nyvolapük.... ;-)
                      >>  >
                      >>  > So then I said I would ask people here on this list. And say, there
                      >> are 185 people subscribed to this list, and I'd like to hear from more
                      >> then four of you!
                      >>
                      >> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volapuk/
                      >
                      > <*> Your email settings:
                      >    Individual Email | Traditional
                      >
                      > <*> To change settings online go to:
                      >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volapuk/join
                      >    (Yahoo! ID required)
                      >
                      > <*> To change settings via email:
                      >    volapuk-digest@yahoogroups.com
                      >    volapuk-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      >    volapuk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      >    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • Tony Harris
                      I agree with the notion of naming them by their originator instead of rigik and nulik, for the reasons you have given below. For whether to use schleyer or
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jan 12, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree with the notion of naming them by their originator instead of rigik and nulik, for the reasons you have given below.

                        For whether to use schleyer or jleyer, which is the only other question, I think it depends on whether one customarily names dialects based on the internal designation to the language, or on what one would call the dialect in English.  So for an invented example (since I can't think of a real one off the top of my head), if a language named Smurfish (code: xm) has a dialect spoken in a region called natively Ippich, but which English speakers routinely call Smurfhill, would the resulting code generally be assigned as xm-ippich or as xm-smurfhill?

                        If the norm would say that you would use xm-ippich, then that means you normally let the language's own speakers and internal naming/spelling dictate the code, and we would use vo-jleyer.  If the norm is that all codes use the English spelling/designation of the dialect, then we would use vo-schleyer as the more internationally recognizable name.



                        On 01/12/2012 12:28 PM, Michael Everson wrote:  

                        So far we don't have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation.

                        Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication)

                        Wolf Padawer prefers vo-jleyer and vo-dejong

                        Don Gasper prefers vo-schleyer and vo-dejong

                        More opinions, please!

                        Michael

                        On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:38, Michael Everson wrote:

                        > As many of you know, Volapük has a two-letter ISO 639-1 code "vo" and a three letter ISO 639-2/639-3 code, "vol". There is an internet RFC which specifies the use of subtags in order to make precise (if necessary) which variety of language is being used, for instance, in a web page. Thus we can distinguish en-GB for British English and en-US for American English, and en-sco for Scots and en-sco-ulster for Ulster Scots.
                        >
                        > I recently proposed two tags for potential use for Volapük. (The usage is not obligatory.)
                        >
                        > vo-jleyer would be for "Volapük rigik" or "Schleyerian Volapük"
                        >
                        > vo-dejong would be for "Volapük nulik", "Volapük perevidöl", "Dejongian Volapük", "Modern Volapük"
                        >
                        > Questions have been raised:
                        >
                        > Why jleyer and not schleyer? (My answer was, I liked it that jleyer and dejong have the same number of letters)
                        >
                        > Why not "rigik" and "nulik"? My answer was:
                        >
                        >> But as most people don't know Volapük even if they know about it (many Esperantists know quite a lot about Volapük and its place in the history of international auxiliary languages) using "nulik" and "rigik" is not necessarily as transparent as referring to Schleyer (who devised the original version of Volapük) and de Jong (who revised Volapük), whose names are well known indeed. And people might get confused that "Volapük rigik" is sort of a Riksvolapük, and "Volapük nulik" as a sort of Nyvolapük.... ;-)
                        >
                        > So then I said I would ask people here on this list. And say, there are 185 people subscribed to this list, and I'd like to hear from more then four of you!

                        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

                      • Hermann Philipps
                        By the way, if an equal number of letters is an issue here, it would be quite acceptable to shorten schleyer to schley . The cognoscenti would still know
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jan 12, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          By the way, if an equal number of letters is an issue here, it would
                          be quite acceptable to shorten 'schleyer' to 'schley'. The cognoscenti
                          would still know who this is.

                          Cheers,
                          Hermann

                          Tony Harris schrieb:
                          >
                          >
                          > I agree with the notion of naming them by their originator instead of
                          > rigik and nulik, for the reasons you have given below.
                          >
                          > For whether to use schleyer or jleyer, which is the only other question,
                          > I think it depends on whether one customarily names dialects based on
                          > the internal designation to the language, or on what one would call the
                          > dialect in English. So for an invented example (since I can't think of
                          > a real one off the top of my head), if a language named Smurfish (code:
                          > xm) has a dialect spoken in a region called natively Ippich, but which
                          > English speakers routinely call Smurfhill, would the resulting code
                          > generally be assigned as xm-ippich or as xm-smurfhill?
                          >
                          > If the norm would say that you would use xm-ippich, then that means you
                          > normally let the language's own speakers and internal naming/spelling
                          > dictate the code, and we would use vo-jleyer. If the norm is that all
                          > codes use the English spelling/designation of the dialect, then we would
                          > use vo-schleyer as the more internationally recognizable name.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > On 01/12/2012 12:28 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
                          >
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> So far we don't have enough votes in to be able to give a recommendation.
                          >>
                          >> Mark Shoulson prefers vo-rigik and vo-nulik (personal communication)
                          >>
                          >> Wolf Padawer prefers vo-jleyer and vo-dejong
                          >>
                          >> Don Gasper prefers vo-schleyer and vo-dejong
                          >>
                          >> More opinions, please!
                          >>
                          >> Michael
                          >>
                          >> On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:38, Michael Everson wrote:
                          >>
                          >> > As many of you know, Volapük has a two-letter ISO 639-1 code "vo"
                          >> and a three letter ISO 639-2/639-3 code, "vol". There is an internet
                          >> RFC which specifies the use of subtags in order to make precise (if
                          >> necessary) which variety of language is being used, for instance, in a
                          >> web page. Thus we can distinguish en-GB for British English and en-US
                          >> for American English, and en-sco for Scots and en-sco-ulster for
                          >> Ulster Scots.
                          >> >
                          >> > I recently proposed two tags for potential use for Volapük. (The
                          >> usage is not obligatory.)
                          >> >
                          >> > vo-jleyer would be for "Volapük rigik" or "Schleyerian Volapük"
                          >> >
                          >> > vo-dejong would be for "Volapük nulik", "Volapük perevidöl",
                          >> "Dejongian Volapük", "Modern Volapük"
                          >> >
                          >> > Questions have been raised:
                          >> >
                          >> > Why jleyer and not schleyer? (My answer was, I liked it that jleyer
                          >> and dejong have the same number of letters)
                          >> >
                          >> > Why not "rigik" and "nulik"? My answer was:
                          >> >
                          >> >> But as most people don't know Volapük even if they know about it
                          >> (many Esperantists know quite a lot about Volapük and its place in the
                          >> history of international auxiliary languages) using "nulik" and
                          >> "rigik" is not necessarily as transparent as referring to Schleyer
                          >> (who devised the original version of Volapük) and de Jong (who revised
                          >> Volapük), whose names are well known indeed. And people might get
                          >> confused that "Volapük rigik" is sort of a Riksvolapük, and "Volapük
                          >> nulik" as a sort of Nyvolapük.... ;-)
                          >> >
                          >> > So then I said I would ask people here on this list. And say, there
                          >> are 185 people subscribed to this list, and I'd like to hear from more
                          >> then four of you!
                          >>
                          >> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                          >>
                          >
                        • Michael Everson
                          ... So would vo-jleyer, though. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 12 Jan 2012, at 17:35, Hermann Philipps wrote:

                            > I'm for vo-schleyer and vo-dejong. These tags would pinpoint the two
                            > dialects to their exact origins.

                            So would vo-jleyer, though.

                            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                          • Michael Everson
                            ... There is a wide variety of choices used in the Registry... For instance for Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian, instead of using -western and -eastern
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 12 Jan 2012, at 17:41, Tony Harris wrote:

                              > I agree with the notion of naming them by their originator instead of rigik and nulik, for the reasons you have given below.
                              >
                              > For whether to use schleyer or jleyer, which is the only other question, I think it depends on whether one customarily names dialects based on the internal designation to the language, or on what one would call the dialect in English.

                              There is a wide variety of choices used in the Registry... For instance for Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian, instead of using -western and -eastern (which could be applied to *any* language) the terms 'arevmda' and 'arevela' were used.

                              > So for an invented example (since I can't think of a real one off the top of my head), if a language named Smurfish (code: xm) has a dialect spoken in a region called natively Ippich, but which English speakers routinely call Smurfhill, would the resulting code generally be assigned as xm-ippich or as xm-smurfhill?

                              Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is "bauddha" not "buddhhyb" for instance.

                              > If the norm would say that you would use xm-ippich, then that means you normally let the language's own speakers and internal naming/spelling dictate the code, and we would use vo-jleyer. If the norm is that all codes use the English spelling/designation of the dialect, then we would use vo-schleyer as the more internationally recognizable name.

                              Googling "jleyer volapük" gets 85 hits, which is fewer than the 139,000 which "schleyer volapük" gets. Not that this would be unexpected.

                              I have another idea about pointing to specific dictionaries. See the next entry in this thread.

                              Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                            • Michael Everson
                              Other options would be: vo-1888vbuk vo-1931vbuk where vbuk = vödabuk and the references are to Schleyer s 4th edition and to de Jong s 6th edition.
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Other options would be:

                                vo-1888vbuk
                                vo-1931vbuk

                                where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:

                                1882 2nd edition
                                1884 3rd edition
                                1888 4th edition (648 pp)
                                1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")

                                I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)

                                This format has often been used for subtags:

                                1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
                                1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
                                baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
                                1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
                                petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
                                luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10

                                So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.

                                Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                              • Ken
                                I haven t voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not vo-1888 vo-1931 or vo1888 vo1931 ? Ken
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not

                                  vo-1888
                                  vo-1931

                                  or

                                  vo1888
                                  vo1931

                                  ?

                                  Ken

                                  --- In volapuk@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Other options would be:
                                  >
                                  > vo-1888vbuk
                                  > vo-1931vbuk
                                  >
                                  > where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:
                                  >
                                  > 1882 2nd edition
                                  > 1884 3rd edition
                                  > 1888 4th edition (648 pp)
                                  > 1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")
                                  >
                                  > I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)
                                  >
                                  > This format has often been used for subtags:
                                  >
                                  > 1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
                                  > 1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
                                  > baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
                                  > 1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
                                  > petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
                                  > luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10
                                  >
                                  > So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.
                                  >
                                  > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                  >
                                • Hermann Philipps
                                  True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible exception of Godes s
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is
                                    -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible
                                    exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good
                                    alignment to how languages really work, might still have some
                                    potential -- a dead horse.

                                    Hermann

                                    Ken schrieb:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In
                                    > fact, why not
                                    >
                                    > vo-1888
                                    > vo-1931
                                    >
                                    > or
                                    >
                                    > vo1888
                                    > vo1931
                                    >
                                    > ?
                                    >
                                    > Ken
                                    >
                                    > --- In volapuk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:volapuk%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                    > Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Other options would be:
                                    > >
                                    > > vo-1888vbuk
                                    > > vo-1931vbuk
                                    > >
                                    > > where "vbuk" = "vödabuk" and the references are to Schleyer's 4th
                                    > edition and to de Jong's 6th edition. (Schleyer wrote 5 editions:
                                    > >
                                    > > 1882 2nd edition
                                    > > 1884 3rd edition
                                    > > 1888 4th edition (648 pp)
                                    > > 1897 5th edition (unfinished: 224 pages, only from "a" to "back")
                                    > >
                                    > > I am not sure when the 1st edition was.)
                                    > >
                                    > > This format has often been used for subtags:
                                    > >
                                    > > 1606nict (Late Middle French to 1606) - added 2007-03-20
                                    > > 1694acad (Early Modern French) - added 2007-03-20
                                    > > baku1926 (Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet) - added 2007-04-18
                                    > > 1959acad (Academic/Governmantal Belarusian) - added 2008-09-30
                                    > > petr1708 (Russian orthography 1708-1917) - added 2010-10-10
                                    > > luna1918 (Russian orthography post-1917) - added 2010-10-10
                                    > >
                                    > > So either vbuk1931 or 1931vbuk would probably be fine. More precise
                                    > than rigik/nulik or jleyer/dejong. On the other hand, perhaps less mnemonic.
                                    > >
                                    > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Michael Everson
                                    ... vo- is the existing prefix. Most web pages or whatever can be tagged vo already. No problem. But if you want to distinguish the different orthographies,
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:25, Ken wrote:

                                      > I haven't voiced an opinion until now, but I like the date option. In fact, why not
                                      >
                                      > vo-1888
                                      > vo-1931
                                      >
                                      > or
                                      >
                                      > vo1888
                                      > vo1931

                                      vo- is the existing prefix. Most web pages or whatever can be tagged "vo" already. No problem. But if you want to distinguish the different orthographies, you need a variant tag.

                                      Four-digit standalone tags are not permitted -- apart from "1990" which describes the German spelling reform ("die Schlechtschreibung") which was added before the rule was made. As I showed in my last message, the practice with dates now is mostly to use four letters with them. as 1694acad. That's why I suggested "YYYYvbuk".

                                      Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                    • Michael Everson
                                      ... Yes. That s why I m learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word novel in it. There s nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes,
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jan 14, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:34, Hermann Philipps wrote:

                                        > True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good alignment to how languages really work, might still have some potential -- a dead horse.

                                        Yes. That's why I'm learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word novel in it.

                                        There's nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes, most people interested in Volapük today are Volapükologists rather than Volapükists, to borrow the distinction made by the Esperantists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%c3%bckologist

                                        Anyway, language tagging is useful, and the distinction here is certainly something it would be handy to be able to tag.

                                        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                      • Hermann Philipps
                                        I m pleased to read this. It is a wonderful hobby, and I might even consider brushing up my own Volapük so I can read your novel. Have fun! Glidis ladöfik,
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jan 15, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'm pleased to read this. It is a wonderful hobby, and I might even
                                          consider brushing up my own Volapük so I can read your novel.
                                          Have fun!

                                          Glidis ladöfik,
                                          Hermann

                                          Michael Everson schrieb:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > On 14 Jan 2012, at 18:34, Hermann Philipps wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > True. I join this opinion. Not that it would matter a lot. Volapük is
                                          > -- like all the rest of the constructed languages with the possible
                                          > exception of Godes's Interlingua which, at least considering its good
                                          > alignment to how languages really work, might still have some potential
                                          > -- a dead horse.
                                          >
                                          > Yes. That's why I'm learning it, and preparing to publish a 27,000-word
                                          > novel in it.
                                          >
                                          > There's nothing wrong with an intellectually-stimulating hobby. Yes,
                                          > most people interested in Volapük today are Volapükologists rather than
                                          > Volapükists, to borrow the distinction made by the Esperantists.
                                          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%c3%bckologist
                                          >
                                          > Anyway, language tagging is useful, and the distinction here is
                                          > certainly something it would be handy to be able to tag.
                                          >
                                          > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Michael Everson
                                          Discussion here and on the IETF language tags list is still so far inconclusive, considering the number of people who have responded and the number of people
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Jan 20, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Discussion here and on the IETF language tags list is still so far inconclusive, considering the number of people who have responded and the number of people subscribed to this list.

                                            I did some general googling just to see what sorts of terms are out there.

                                            168000 "De Jong" Volapük
                                            139000 Schleyer Volapük
                                            054800 Volapük nulik
                                            002700 Volapük rigik
                                            001410 Volapük perevidöl
                                            001270 "Volapük perevidol"
                                            001230 "De Jong's" Volapük
                                            000884 DeJong Volapük
                                            000859 "Volapük rigik"
                                            000149 "Volapük nulik"
                                            000103 Jleyer Volapük
                                            000024 Schleyerian Volapük
                                            000006 "De Jong's Volapük"
                                            000003 "Schleyerian Volapük"
                                            000003 "De Jongian Volapük"
                                            000000 "DeJong's Volapük"

                                            Obviously search engine results are search engine results. I notice a distinct difference between spelling de Jong's name correctly (as two words) and incorrectly as one. It is interesting to see "perevodöl" do well, but I doubt we can insist on an ö in a meta-subtag. Here I have pared the list down to the front runners:

                                            168000 "De Jong" Volapük correctly spelt
                                            139000 Schleyer Volapük
                                            054800 Volapük nulik
                                            002700 Volapük rigik
                                            000884 DeJong Volapük incorrectly spelt
                                            000859 "Volapük rigik"
                                            000149 "Volapük nulik"
                                            000103 Jleyer Volapük

                                            I'd like to respect de Jong's name, to be honest, which to me means we should go with:

                                            vo-rigik
                                            vo-nulik

                                            (It would also, on reflection, be perverse to write "jleyer" if not alongside "deyong".)

                                            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                          • Michael Everson
                                            Some additional counts added, marked with **: On 20 Jan 2012, at 10:53, Michael Everson wrote: 168000 De Jong Volapük 139000 Schleyer Volapük 054800
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Jan 20, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Some additional counts added, marked with **:

                                              On 20 Jan 2012, at 10:53, Michael Everson wrote:

                                              168000 "De Jong" Volapük
                                              139000 Schleyer Volapük
                                              054800 Volapük nulik
                                              002700 Volapük rigik
                                              001410 Volapük perevidöl
                                              001270 "Volapük perevidol"
                                              001230 "De Jong's" Volapük
                                              000978 "Modern VolapÜk" **
                                              000884 DeJong Volapük
                                              000859 "Volapük rigik"
                                              000608 "Original Volapük" **
                                              000435 "New Volapük" **
                                              000325 "Classic Volapük" **
                                              000149 "Volapük nulik"
                                              000103 Jleyer Volapük
                                              000024 Schleyerian Volapük
                                              000010 "Volapük nulädik" **
                                              000006 "De Jong's Volapük"
                                              000003 "Schleyerian Volapük"
                                              000003 "De Jongian Volapük"
                                              000000 "DeJong's Volapük"
                                              000000 "Volapük klatädik" **

                                              Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.