"Uncoded languages" would be my preference.

Best regards

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 04 May 2007 15:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
> 
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> 
> > I would agree with the intent...
> 
> Good. Thanks for confirming that.
> 
> 
> > Also, in the sentence below...
> > it would be clearer to say:
> > "If a new language is added to ISO 639-2 which was 
> previously listed 
> > as a language under "mis"...
> 
> A problem with that is that ISO 639 has never listed 
> languages under mis.
> 
> 
> > I would prefer calling it something like "Other languages"
> > or "Other unrelated languages". Saying "Unsupported languages"
> > doesn't make sense to me-- it's not clear what isn't supported.
> > If they're really "unsupported" there wouldn't be an identifier for 
> > them. It's really more "Unenumerated languages"-- or miscellaneous 
> > languages that don't belong in any defined group.
> 
> Joan indicated "unsupported" was better to her than 
> "miscellaneous". I see what you say about "unsupported", though.
> 
> Some possibilities:
> 
> - Unsupported languages
> - Other languages
> - Other unrelated languages
> - Unenumerated languages
> - Uncoded languages
> - Other uncoded languages
> 
> Or maybe others have other ideas.
> 
> Perhaps it might be useful if each of us indicated a couple 
> of choices in order of preference. My picks:
> 
> 1) Other languages
> 2) Uncoded languages
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>