ISO 639-3 changes: Latvian and Bontok

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, in commenting on the "info." field, I tried to combine both of Doug's posts, and comment on these together.


Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Sat Feb 20 19:05:05 CET 2010 


> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

>> You sometimes refer to "lav". I think that reference should be to "lv" 
>> or to "lav/lv".

> In forms like these, I use the 3-letter code element value when 
> referring to ISO 639-3, or to an action taken by ISO 639-3/RA, and I use 
> the 2- or 3-letter subtag value when referring to the IANA Language 
> Subtag Registry.  Similarly, I try to use the term "code element" or 
> "subtag" depending on whether a 639-3 or LSR entity is being discussed. 
> The two are not 100% interchangeable and I don't treat them as if they 
> were.

> I don't want to make it look as though 'lv' is an ISO 639-3 code 
> element.  It's not.
(I missed the fact that this is not an ISO 639-3 code; sorry.
I don't have access to ISO 639-4, and am not sure what needs to be added regarding ISO 639-4?
Peter mentioned ISO 639-4 in his email although the rest applied to ISO 639-1)
> How about:

> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective 
> 2010-01-20, reclassifying the ISO 639-3 code element 'lav' (Latvian, 
> which is represented by ISO 639-1 'lv' in the Language Subtag 
> Registry) as a macrolanguage 
> encompassing 'ltg' (Latgalian) and 'lvs' (Standard Latvian)."
Fine with me.
> and:

> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective 
> 2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lvs' for Standard Latvian, 
> encompassed by the macrolanguage code element 'lav' (Latvian, which is 
> 'lv' in the Language Subtag Registry).  Both a primary language subtag 
> and an extended language subtag were added for this code element."

What about
=>
"This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective 
2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lvs' for Standard Latvian, 
encompassed by the ISO 639-3 macrolanguage code element 'lav' (Latvian, which is 
which is represented by ISO 639-1 'lv' in the Language Subtag 
Registry).  Both a primary language subtag 
and an extended language subtag were added for this code element."

 

Also ditto for [ltg] of course.

 

 

>> "Central Bontok proper" or some such clarification is needed here (as 
>> for some other cases handled before); the change from "c" to "k" is 
>> not sufficient for this. Similarly for the registration data for 
>> "lbk".

> We have other changes which differ by only one letter: Yakima was 
> changed to Yakama, and Kabiyé (acute accent) was changed to Kabiyè 
> (grave accent).  The change from "Maguindanao" to "Maguindanaon" does 
> not visually stand out either.  I can change the 'bnc' registration form 
> to read "Central Bontok proper" but it's understandable that this 
> becomes a very gray area when over 100 changes are being made in one 
> activity.
I think it should say this
for [lbk]:
=>

"   This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective
   2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lbk' for Central Bontok proper,
   encompassed by macrolanguage 'bnc' (Bontok)."

Best,

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100220/fa4d70bb/attachment-0001.htm