Just a few specific comments on the tables included in the document
Egyptian, Greek, Mongolian. Should these appears as Egyptian
languages, Greek languages, Mongolian languages?
Batak languages: These are not part of the Philippine group. The
hierarchy should be map: poz: pqw: btk.
Manobo languages--This group is part of the Philippine group. The
hierarchy should be map: poz: pqw: phi: mno.
Nahuatl languages--This group is part of Uto-Aztecan. The hierarchy
should be nai: azc: nah.
Papuan languages--These are not part of Austronesian. The hierarchy
should be ngf: paa.
Yupik languages--These are part of the Eskimo family. The hierarchy
should be esx: ypk
A question about the definition of Bantu languages. If this
corresponds to the grouping known as "narrow Bantu" then the hierarchy
for Bamileke language is wrong. Or is the intention to equate Bantu
Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress
>>> Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 08/30/07 9:13 AM >>>
Dear JAC members,
As convener of ISO/TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 and Project Editor for ISO 639-5 I
have prepared a document as a result of the discussions in Provo. It is
almost ready for FDIS ballot. Some text still needs to be finalized in
the French version (the document is bilingual). It would also be nice to
have access to a few extra sets of eyes.
You will find the document in the Livelink folder of TC37/SC2/WG1, at
If you don't have access to that folder and would want to take a look at
the document, please contact me directly and I shall be happy to send a
copy as email attachment.
I promised to submit the document within 15 September. Please submit
any comments as soon as possible and no later than 8 September.
Standard Norge / Standards Norway
tel: (+47) 67838600 | faks / fax: (+47) 67838601
direkte tel / direct tel: (+47) 67838645
[log in to unmask] <blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]>