I would prefer "uncoded languages" - if only not to stimulate people to (be lazy and) avoid checking properly...
Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
Infoterm - International Information Centre for Termninology
Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, 1060 Vienna, Austria
TEL +43-664-3446181 - FAX +43-1-524 0606-99
http://www.infoterm.info - [log in to unmask]
Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize
co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide
---- Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> schrieb:
> 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