On 11/22/2002 08:22:47 AM Milicent K Wewerka wrote:
>Considering Peter's comment below, I think any mention of Oirat would
>need to include a qualification such as "Oirat (Kalmyk)" so that the
>user of the standard is not directed to Kalmyk if he really wants one of
>the other languages.
Currently, we have an code element in 639-2 using the identifier ast. The
English-language name given as the denotation is "Asturian; Bable" and the
French-language name given is "asturien; bable". Based on current
information, what I think we should do is have a code element kgz (or
whatever identifier) with the English-language name given as "Kalmyk;
Oirat".
It is true that this would not prevent some users from confusing this with
other languages that may happen to be referred to by some as "Asiatic
Oirat". That is the problem of having a list of language identifiers for
which denotations are documented only by giving language names. The problem
already exists in ISO 639: there are entries for which there is no way to
know for certain which of different languages was intended. The only way to
solve that problem is to document the denotation of identifiers using more
than just names. (This was one of the issues Gary Simons and I discussed in
a paper two years ago.)
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
|