The "not-language" identifier (was: RE: Mandarin Chinese, Simplified Script)

[John.Cowan]

Peter Constable scripsit:

> These aren't particularly strong arguments. To go from "not language" to
> "not English" is a huge leap, and it's pretty obvious the JAC would
> never consider the latter. The question of what part of 639 it would fit
> is isn't particularly important. Part 2 already has specials;
> eventually, the alpha-3 space will likely get merged. As for why use a
> language tag and then say "it isn't", those arguments have been made;
> various agencies making real applications using 639 have demonstrated
> needs.

If the 639 RA turns this down fairly quickly, we still have time to register
"i-notlang" before the RFC 3066bis cutover.  This would have the mild advantage
that it's not generative, so we won't get i-notlang-Brai-AQ tags.

So let's try to get them to either accept or reject it.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan at reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version