[Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request

[John Cowan]

Mark Davis scripsit:

> So what about "mis"? Once again, I *should* tag more specifically,
> if I have the information. No argument at all there. The question is
> whether it is non-conformant to BCP 47 to tag "kind" as "mis". For that,
> we need to establish whether there is sufficient grounds in the text
> and data of ISO 639-2 as of the time that "mis" was taken into BCP 47 to
> conclusively determine that "mis" is disjoint from other language codes.

In order to determine the semantics of 639-2, we must look to the MARC
list and the practice of the Library of Congress (just as to determine
the semantics of 639-3, we must look to the Ethnologue).  Peter gave
us the list of languages and language groups which MARC tags using
'mis':  see http://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/lang_l2n.html .
There may not be 100% agreement between this list and 639-2, but it's
the best we have right now, especially when supplemented with
http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=mis .

-- 
In my last lifetime,                            John Cowan
I believed in reincarnation;                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in this lifetime,                               cowan at ccil.org
I don't.  --Thiagi