As far as I understand, it is possible to change the ISO639-3 codes and language names (Joan Span's posting has just reminded me of this), but you are right; I do not think a change to the code itself would be worth pursuing; if you wished to add additional names however, that would be fine:<BR>
The types of changes that are possible are to:<BR>
<LI>modify the reference information for an existing code element (reference name and additional names, language type. language scope or relationship to a <A href="http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp">macrolanguage</A> grouping).
<LI>retire a code element from use, including merging its scope of denotation into that of another code.
<LI>split an existing code element into two or more separate language code elements.
<LI>create a new code element for a previously unidentified language. </LI></OL>
And we can still approve the variant subtags (once RFC 4646 is published? Is that the consensus?)<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</A> <BR><BR><BR><BR>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org<BR>> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org<BR>> Subject: Re: Suggestion: registration of variant subtags for Aluku, Ndyuka, and Pamaka (Suriname/French Guiana English-based Creoles)<BR>> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:06:48 -0300<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Le Friday 23 January 2009, vous avez écrit :<BR>> > Hi, the information at Wikipedia & Ethnologue suggests that M. Vaillant is<BR>> > correct; these seem to be three dialects.<BR>> ><BR>> > But I am not familiar with these either.<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> Actually my request reflects the view of a group of specialists<BR>> in my research lab, CELIA, which is specialized in the field<BR>> (http://celia.cnrs.fr). Two of them wrote one of the bibliographical<BR>> references cited. The Ethnologue catalogue edited by the SIL <BR>> (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=djk),<BR>> which is the ground on which the ISO 639-3 standard is based,<BR>> also considers the three varieties as dialects of a same language,<BR>> not as languages of a same macro-language. The disagreement between<BR>> specialists would rather lie in one detail, namely the mnemonic<BR>> chosen to name that language : 'djk' (language tag chosen by<BR>> the SIL) is a reminder of Djuka, which is but one variety of<BR>> the language (though the most numerous). But this is not a matter<BR>> to be discussed here, I suppose.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Pascal Vaillant<BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR></body>