ISO 639-3 releases list of 2009 changes

Mark Davis ☕ mark at
Sat Jan 23 08:38:49 CET 2010

Even if that were the case, why does "Standard" prevent making a
macrolangauge? And does the lack of "Standard" allow it, in French, English,
... and the thousands of other languages that don't have "Standard" in their
Ethnologue page?


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 23:15, John Cowan <cowan at> wrote:

> Mark Davis â?? scripsit:
> > If the argument is that ISO 639-3 can't make a change in X *because **the
> > Ethnologue says Y, *it doesn't hold water, because the Ethnologue is
> neither
> > part of nor normatively referenced by ISO 639-3.
> No, it isn't.  But then the glyphs in the Unicode Standard aren't
> normative either, but 'z' just isn't going to be a glyph for LATIN
> CAPITAL LETTER Q.  It's just not that likely that ISO 639-3/RA will
> change the meaning of code elements in a way which seriously contradicts
> the information in the Ethnologue.  They are, after all, basically the
> same set of people.
> --
> Dream projects long deferred             John Cowan <cowan at>
> usually bite the wax tadpole.  
>        --James Lileks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list