Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

Debbie Garside debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Thu Apr 24 23:02:08 CEST 2008


John wrote:

>>My overall feeling is that we should accept the narrowing, which is only
implicit

Agreed.  As we follow ISO 639 this is the right decision to make IMHO.

 (it does not require actual changes to the registry entry for 'kha').

I don't agree here.  I think, as has been done before, that 'kha' should
have a comment added to say something like "as of  [date] this code does not
include Lynghgam - see lyg"

best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 24 April 2008 18:02
> To: ISO639-3 at sil.org
> Cc: John Cowan; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]
>
> ISO639-3 at sil.org scripsit:
>
> > I apologize; the file was not present. It had not been
> copied from the
> > development server when the rest of the data was copied. It
> is now there.
> > Thank you for alerting me.
>
> Thanks for the quick fix.
>
> > I trust the comment document will answer your confusion. The
> > documentation page does indicate that Lyngngam was adopted,
> though the
> > associated proposed changes were not.
>
> Okay; this raises issues for the list.  An unofficial summary of what
> happened: Lyngngam was formerly regarded as a highly
> divergent dialect of Khasi 'kha'.  The proposal was to
> promote 'kha' to a macrolanguage code element, and introduce
> new elements for Khasi proper and for Lyngngam.
> This was rejected in favor adding 'lyg' for Lyngngam,
> implicitly narrowing the denotation of 'kha' to exclude it.
>
> This is a disruptive thing to do, but 639/RA considered it
> less disruptive, given the absence of evidence[*] that anyone
> has used 'kha'
> to denote Lyngngam content, than doing something that would
> effectively introduce a near-synonym for 'kha'.  This is the
> more important because 'kha' is also a 639-2 code element and
> thus already in wide use.
>
> My overall feeling is that we should accept the narrowing,
> which is only implicit (it does not require actual changes to
> the registry entry for 'kha').
>
>
> [*] "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not
> always a sound principle of reasoning.  There is no actual
> *evidence* that I have not murdered Jimmy Hoffa, but it would
> be absurd to treat me as a suspect, since there is also no
> evidence that I have.  Furthermore, if I had been
> investigated but were cleared, it would be unfair to me to
> treat the question as still open with respect to me.
>
> --
> Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
> Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and
> wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy,
> hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
>   -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun"       cowan at ccil.org
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>
>






More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list