Additional version of Nynorsk (nn)?
It could be used for instance at the Nynorsk Wikipedia (since we already for a long time have had articles written in Høgnorsk there, it would be a natural place to use it), but naturally also for any non-Wikimedia wiki that so wishes it; like the example I provided (I asked at the place if they could be interested in this).
I do not think that it has its own ISO 639-3 code (it does though seem to have been regisetered at IANA as nn-hognorsk, if that matters); however, the reason that I mentioned the formal versions of languages, is because I was thinking of Høgnorsk in the same manner: a subset of Nynorsk. What is the reasoning for allowing formal versions; and in which manner would this reasoning collide with the reasoning for allowing a more or less well-defined subset of an existing language?
Please repeat the request once it has an ISO 639 code. Thanks.
It has the ISO 369 code
nn-hognorsk since a year and a month as of the IANA language subtag registry which has these two entries:
%% Type: variant Subtag: hognorsk Description: Norwegian in Høgnorsk (High Norwegian) orthography Added: 2010-01-02 Prefix: nn Comments: Norwegian following Ivar Aasen's orthographical principles, including modern usage. %% Type: language Subtag: nn Description: Norwegian Nynorsk Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Latn Macrolanguage: no %%
Just looked it up. The code is structurally similar to e.g. be-tarask.
Greetings --Purodha Blissenbach 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hoi, NN-hognorsk is ´´not´´ an ISO-639 code. It follows the relevant RFC. Ask yourself, what was the reason why BE-tarask is used. Thanks,
Well, nn is the ISO 639 code, and the code nn-hognorsk is built according to BCP 47 which is the current standard for language+script+orthography+dialect etc. coding. be-tarask is being used, like several others the like, because there are two orthographies for Belorussian as well. What's the problem with all these? We're talking about localization, not about creating another wiki!
Greetings.