Even if that were the case, why does "Standard" prevent making a macrolangauge? And does the lack of "Standard" allow it, in French, English, ... and the thousands of other languages that don't have "Standard" in their Ethnologue page?<div>
<br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 23:15, John Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Mark Davis â?? scripsit:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> If the argument is that ISO 639-3 can't make a change in X *because **the<br>
> Ethnologue says Y, *it doesn't hold water, because the Ethnologue is neither<br>
> part of nor normatively referenced by ISO 639-3.<br>
<br>
</div>No, it isn't. But then the glyphs in the Unicode Standard aren't<br>
normative either, but 'z' just isn't going to be a glyph for LATIN<br>
CAPITAL LETTER Q. It's just not that likely that ISO 639-3/RA will<br>
change the meaning of code elements in a way which seriously contradicts<br>
the information in the Ethnologue. They are, after all, basically the<br>
same set of people.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Dream projects long deferred John Cowan <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>><br>
usually bite the wax tadpole. <a href="http://www.ccil.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>
--James Lileks<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>