<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>Hi!<BR> <BR>Thanks to Michael Everson for submitting the completely updated forms:<BR><A href="http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2009-August/009281.html">http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2009-August/009281.html</A><BR> <BR>(I do believe that it is possible to change the fields--comments, description--after a record is registered?? That's what I've understood. I think that the term 'bush' is currently not looked on as so bad?? (except that some may use it to mean 'primitive' rather than simply 'divorced' from some perhaps less palatable ways of life). <BR>(One note: According to my recent search, for what it's worth--it seems that these groups began to 'live in the bush' (that is independently, not on large plantations) after an invasion where the owners abandoned their plantations:<BR>
<A href="http://books.google.com/books?id=T47lSAGCY34C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Aucan+Paramaccan&source=bl&ots=ry6qPr1dlE&sig=Lxqb7VFSObQrbM4_7BaRpglDF78&hl=en&ei=GxyTSvaFCIzKtgeEqOlR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=T47lSAGCY34C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Aucan+Paramaccan&source=bl&ots=ry6qPr1dlE</A><A href="http://books.google.com/books?id=T47lSAGCY34C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Aucan+Paramaccan&source=bl&ots=ry6qPr1dlE&sig=Lxqb7VFSObQrbM4_7BaRpglDF78&hl=en&ei=GxyTSvaFCIzKtgeEqOlR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false">&sig=Lxqb7VFSObQrbM4_7BaRpglDF78&hl=en&ei=GxyTSvaFCIzKtgeEqOlR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false</A> <BR>I doubt this has any bearing on this discussion about whether the term 'bush' is 'derogatory'--but perhaps??? The term is used in this rather dated book, but I assume for now that it is not derogatory.)<BR> <BR> <BR>Best,<BR> <BR> <BR><BR><BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR> <BR> <BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR>Mon Aug 24 02:03:24 CEST 2009 <BR><BR>> I have a suggestion. Why don't we stop worrying about the Description <BR>> field for 'djk' and focus on the variants that Pascal wanted to <BR>> register?<BR>> . . . <BR>> Here we have someone who wants variants for three dialects of an ISO <BR>> 639-3 language, and he NON-normatively refers to that language by a name > that ISO 639-3 did not use. Now, la, we have a big debate over whether > the NON-normative Description field for this primary language subtag > needs to be changed to match, and whether one or more spellings proposed > for that name might be offensive -- no evidence that it is, just fear. > It was suggested that we need to take into account what name the native > speakers might want to be used for their language in an official context > like the Registry. Ethnologue says there are 22,090 speakers with a > literacy rate under 10%. Are we really going to insist on this kind of > research?<BR> <BR><BR></body>
</html>