[Ltru] 'car' in different ISO 639 parts

[John Cowan]

Peter Constable scripsit:

> This is an inconsistency in ISO 639 that the JAC should resolve: 639-5
> is giving a very different denotation from -2/-3 -- a collection scope
> versus individual-language scope -- which is something that should
> never happen.

It would be good if the JAC could expedite this.

Does the provision for "rest groups" in 639-5 and their treatment as
full families mean that the effort to remove "(Other)" in 639-2 is a
dead letter now?

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
        --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You