Registration forms for description changes

[Doug Ewell]

Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:

> As it stands, the entry for 'den' in the registry is ok. But the 
> spelling for 'Slave' has been changed to 'Slavey'.

The listing on the ISO 639-2/RA Web site is "Slave (Athapascan)".

Reference: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html#st

The Description fields in the Registry were taken directly from existing 
ISO standards whenever possible.

It is true that "Slavey" has been proposed as a replacement spelling 
(Wikipedia says "the change" has already been made), both to encourage 
correct pronunciation and to remove the false association with slavery. 
ISO 639-3 lists "Slavey, North" and "Slavey, South" as individual 
languages under a macrolanguage which is still called "Slave 
(Athapascan)."

It may be appropriate to consider "Slavey" as an additional Description 
field, and Kent or anyone else is welcome to submit it as a 
modification, but this is a separate issue from ASCII fallbacks and 
splitting compound names.

> More significantly the "(Athapascan)" part is NOT an alternative name; 
> instead it is unique in the regitry for explicitly indicating the 
> language family of 'den'. So the PROPOSED new entry for 'den' is 
> inaccurate.

I agree completely with Kent on this one, and withdraw my proposal to 
split this description into "Slave" and "Athapascan."

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/