Anomaly in upcoming registry

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Fri Jul 10 01:35:18 CEST 2009



I agree we should not collapse Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian (which is of course an issue separate from whether or not [sh] for the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian should be 'revived'); of course, for [sh] to indicate a macrolanguage, there also have to be the separate individual languages [sh] encompasses; I assume thus that there is no chance of collapsing the individual languages without first changing the scope of [sh]???  Which "MUST mirror changes made by ISO 639" anyway? 

(NOTE:  Apparently there are some differences between the three languages which can be emphasized [of course there are differences between British and American English].  I saw a link to a perhaps interesting article at "Questia"  on the differences between the Serbo Croation languages--but have no access to it.)
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at 
Thu Jul 9 07:03:14 CEST 2009 

> Where I *don't* want this discussion to go is down the path of
> whether any of the languages formerly known as Serbo-Croatian
> should be collapsed, as Romanian and Moldovan (rightly) were.

> Randy

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

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list