At 20:46 -0800 2006-03-24, Peter Constable wrote:
>I had considered macrolanguage by what seemed like an analogous
>situation to Chinese: various distinct languages, but there is a
>written form that (to some extent) can be used by all. But with the
>further explanation Michael provides, it doesn't sound like that at
>all.
>
>The ID "zh" is widely used for "Chinese" text; as such, it's
>entirely appropriate to refer to content that is in Mandarin "zh"
>versus Cantonese "zh" versus Hokkien "zh" etc. If N'Ko is a
>macrolanguage, then it should make sense to refer to the Bambara
>variety of N'Ko versus the Maninka variety of N'Ko etc. But if I
>understand Michael's description correctly, that would *not* be
>appropriate.
>
>Michael gives Interlingua as an analogy. That is not like "zh".
>
>Given what I've heard from Michael so far, I think that, if we code
>it, it should be considered an individual language, not a
>macrolanguage, and not a register or dialect of some other language.

I agree.

By the way. N'Ko Alphabet Day is 14 April. If the JAC could approve
and publish the application for N'Ko (nqo as it happens) *on* 14
April, it will make a lot of people happy. I know, you don't *have*
to make the effort to do this, but it would be rather nice for the
community.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com