Alemanic & Swiss German

Peter Constable petercon at
Mon Dec 4 22:37:30 CET 2006

Joan Spanne and I will follow up on this.

From: mark.edward.davis at [mailto:mark.edward.davis at] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:19 PM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: ietf-languages at; ISO639-3 at
Subject: Re: Alemanic & Swiss German
Ok, so far so good. It sounds like we agree that the reference name for gsw in 639-3 should be "Swiss German", and that that should be the first name listed in 639-2. What would be the right channels in ISO to get this fixed? 

I would also question that "Alemanic" should even be mentioned, since I really don't think it is common at all to refer to it as "Alemanic" (except mistakenly), but that is clearly of somewhat lesser importance. 

On 12/4/06, Peter Constable <petercon at> wrote:
It is not the case that 639-3 lists "Alemanic" as the *sole * name for gsw; it lists "Swiss German" as well. 
However, it does appear that the current draft does use "Alemanic" as the reference name, which I agree is a bad choice since it is misleading, and that "Swiss German" would be a better choice: even if the appropriateness of "Alemanic" is in question, "Swiss German" is not and, among English-language names, is the most commonly used.

From: mark.edward.davis at [mailto: mark.edward.davis at <mailto:mark.edward.davis at> ] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
The only reason it does have to do with LTRU is that we are considering adding 639-3, and 639-3 lists "Alemanic" as the *sole* name for gsw, which is clearly incorrect. Thus it raises the issue of whether to take the 639-3 names wholesale, or allow corrections. 

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list