Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning

[John Cowan]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Who knows? ;-) It is not a linguistic issue, it is a meta-issue. That 
> is why I asked John Cowan to look for consensus aye or nay and report 
> back. He didn't.

There was no consensus to report.

>He's changed his comment request from "A collection of languages which
>don't belong to any other collection" to "A collection of unrelated
>languages which don't belong to any other ISO 639 collection"

The 'mis' languages are not all related (that is, they do not form a
single language family), but they are not all unrelated either
(that is, they form a number of language families, but also include
some language isolates).

My personal view is that there is no point in acting on this request.
4646bis will have better instructions about when to use 'mis', and
the 639/RA-JAC is probably going to rearrange things anyhow.
At the moment, the less we commit to the better.

-- 
Normally I can handle panic attacks on my own;   John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
but panic is, at the moment, a way of life.      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan