Just as with Ndebele and Mari, I have different information on
some Ethiopic languages in different standards (counting MARC as a
de facto standard here).

Which of the following sets of information (1) or (2) is correct?
From previous files I have:

------------------------------------------------------------
     LC 639-2 639-1 Language name
------------------------------------------------------------
(1) eth --- -- ** Ethiopic (not in 639-2)
(2) eth gez Ge'ez

Will there be any unification here or not? I assume my information on
case 2 is wrong, unless Ethiopic is being used as a synonym for Ge'ez.
The MARC file I got hold of (still up to date or not) just lists
Ethiopic, and doesn't say Ethiopic languages, or Ethiopic (other), or
Ethiopic (Ge'ez), all of which are theoretical possibilities.

In passing (a less essential part of my query), has Ge'ez every been
considered for ISO 639-1? It has a larger corpus than Avestan, for
instance, I would guess, which was agreed to be added in Washington.

I look forward to any clarification

Best regards

John Clews

--
John Clews, SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG
tel: +44 1423 888 432; fax: + 44 1423 889061;
Email: [log in to unmask]

Committee Chair of ISO/TC46/SC2: Conversion of Written Languages;
Committee Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG20: Internationalization;
Committee Member of CEN/TC304: Information and Communications
 Technologies: European Localization Requirements
Committee Member of TS/1: Terminology (UK national member body of
 ISO/TC37: Terminology)
Committee Member of the Foundation for Endangered Languages;
Committee Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC2: Coded Character Sets