From: Karl Ove Hufthammer (karl_at_huftis.org)
Date: Tue Jan 27 2004 - 14:34:49 EST
Andrew Dunbar <hippietrail_at_yahoo.com> wrote in
news:20040127081550.67416.qmail_at_web9605.mail.yahoo.com:
>> Ideally, if ispell and enchant permit it, "no_NO"
>> and "no" could be interpreted as the union of "nb_NO" and
>> "nn_NO".
>
> ISO 639 has a few idosyncrasies like this but they're
> not noticed often since they're in less famous
> languages.
Note that this is not an *error* in ISO 639. Norwegian Nynorsk and
Norwegian Bokmål is purely *written* languages -- ~noone *speaks*
Nynorsk or Bokmål. The 'no' language code is very useful as a
language code for recordings of spoken Norwegian. There are also
other examples where it is useful.
> "no" is a leftover meaning vaguely "Norwegian". Since
> there are two Norwegian languages, I would suggest
> either make "no" an alias for "nb" since that is the
> majority language and "no" spellcheckers in the past
> have had Bokmal dictionaries.
I'm not entirely sure what making 'no' an alias for 'nb' means
here, but as long as it's *only* used to fetch the right
dictionary, and not output anywhere (e.g. lang='no' in AbiWord
documents), I think this is OK.
> I agree that the ideal solution is to make "no" work
> with both especially since all the printed Norwegian
> dictionaries I can remember seening have all the words
> from both dialects.
No, ~all dictionaries are either for Nynorsk or Bokmål (I can only
think of one exception).
-- Karl Ove Hufthammer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 27 2004 - 14:38:15 EST