Support of Old Church Slavic language sublocale in CLDR

Mon Mar 26 11:26:07 CDT 2018

> If it is more like a dialect difference, then in theory a variant should
be proposed. In practice, variants (other than Script and Region) are not
very well supported in software, however.
I think current ISO 639-2 standard for "cu/chu" suggests term "Church
Slavic" to be some kind of umbrella term with having all the possible
variants under one "cu" tag. (See
http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=chu) So from that point
of view proposing a variant could be sufficient solution. Having the new
ISO code being proposed on the other hand would rise problems with back
compatibility as people now actively use "cu" tag in their code for "Old
Church Slavic", "Russian Church Slavic" and whatever else as the strandard
suggests.

But what does it mean in practical sence? We can not make CLDR "cu" locale
to support all proper variations for "cu" ISO 639-1 unless subtags for
those variants are designated by third party as BCP47 of IANA? What should
I do from now on?

And it still leaves the issue with current CLDR "cu" locale. Now it's set
to be "Church Slavic used by the Russian Orthodox Church" exclusively. It's
not quite the same current ISO 639 for "cu" suggests. What is Russian
Church Slavic from lingustical standpoint? It's the modern variant of
former Old Church Slavic evolved and established in Russia. From that logic
default "cu" locale could just be Old Church Slavic as an originally
universal an initial variant of literary Church Slavic language with having
any modern and ancient geographical variants being set with respective
geographical subtags. Namely Russian Church Slavic to be cu_RU. It would be
the sipliest solution actually.

2018-03-26 13:16 GMT+03:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:

> Some quick comments.
>
> > Is there a need for having this in CLDR as a separate locale? Does
> CLDR even provide support for ancient languages?
>
> While it is possible from someone to propose adding an ancient language
> (as per http://cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/minimaldata), I do think
> the utility would be extremely limited. As with all other languages, we
> would need a commitment to add the minimal data.
>
> > As I wrote in the original ticket, in my view, the way to handle this
> would be to separate "Old" Church Slavic (whatever is meant by this
> term) from Church Slavic the way Ancient Greek has been separated from
> modern Greek: grc is the ISO 639-2 code for Ancient Greek and ell or
> gre are the ISO 639-2 codes for Modern Greek.
>
> We follow BCP47 for codes, so we can't make up a code (as suggested by
> souschan at gmail.com) for "cu-old". If "Old" Church Slavic is sufficiently
> different from Church Slavic (eg at least as different as Danish and
> Swedish)\, then a new language code should be proposed to the ISO 639
> group, as you suggested. If it is more like a dialect difference, then in
> theory a variant should be proposed. In practice, variants (other than
> Script and Region) are not very well supported in software, however.
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Aleksandr Andreev via CLDR-Users <
> cldr-users at unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Соус-кун via CLDR-Users
>> <cldr-users at unicode.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > Two years ago I've openned the ticket
>> > https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/9238 about adding separate
>> sublocale
>> > for Old Church Slavic language within the "cu" CLDR locale.
>> > The ticked was closed for formal reasons, but I believe this issue needs
>> > further discussion.
>> >
>>
>> As I wrote in the original ticket, in my view, the way to handle this
>> would be to separate "Old" Church Slavic (whatever is meant by this
>> term) from Church Slavic the way Ancient Greek has been separated from
>> modern Greek: grc is the ISO 639-2 code for Ancient Greek and ell or
>> gre are the ISO 639-2 codes for Modern Greek.
>>
>> I write "whatever is meant by this term" to underline my general
>> concern that "Old" Church Slavic does not seem to be a well-defined
>> term. We've defined "Church Slavic" in CLDR to be the current
>> liturgical language used by the Russian Orthodox Church and other
>> Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches. (Variants can be specified
>> as cu_BG, cu_RU, cu_UA, etc.). This language has well documented norms
>> and a well-established user community.
>>
>> By "Old" Church Slavonic I guess the questioner means the literary
>> language used in manuscripts around the 9th-10th century?
>>
>> Is there a need for having this in CLDR as a separate locale? Does
>> CLDR even provide support for ancient languages? I don't see data in
>> CLDR for Latin, Ancient Greek, Avestan or Sanskrit, for example.
>>
>> What additional functionality would be provided to the user community
>> by including "Old" Church Slavic as a separate locale?
>>
>> > - Linguists consider 'Old Church Slavic' and 'Church Slavic' two
>> different
>> > languanges (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic and
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language for reference).
>>
>> The original ticket proposes adding Old Church Slavic data from the
>> Church Slavonic Wikipedia. How authoritative a source is this for
>> language data?
>>
>> Also, if all that is needed is support for the Glagolitic script, we
>> could define cu_Glag and add data in Glagolitic there.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Aleksandr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLDR-Users mailing list
>> CLDR-Users at unicode.org
>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20180326/7da60792/attachment.html>