The Bhojpuri-language Wikipedia site uses the domain name bh.wikipedia.org. This is treating "Bihari" as an alternate name for the individual language, Bhojpuri.
That's not entirely unlike interpreting zh = "Chinese" to mean the specific individual language, Mandarin, which is something that is not uncommon in practice. When 639-3 was created, if it had been noted, then perhaps bih (= bh) might have been deemed to be a macrolanguage.
But aside from Wikipedia I'm not aware of other cases of bh being used to represent Bhojpuri. In fact, even Wikipedia is incubating new content for Bhojpuri using bho, not bh. (See https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Wikis.)
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: ISO JAC Voting Member List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Sebastian Drude
Sent: April 13, 2021 5:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [JACVOTE] ballot proposed
In the last phrase, I meant to say: ... would NOT cause much harm ...
Sebastian
--
Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica ▪ Av. Perimetral, 1901 Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530 ▪ Belém do Pará – PA ▪ Brazil [log in to unmask] ▪ +55 (91) 3217 6024 ▪ +55 (91) 983733319
Priv: Tv. Juvenal Cordeiro, 184, Apt 104 ▪ 66070-300 Belém
On 13/04/2021 21:11, Sebastian Drude wrote:
> Dear Melinda, all,
>
> is there any way to know how widely [bh] has been used, so what the
> cost of the deprecation of this code would be?
>
> Although I agree that it is desirable to be able to state that "all
> two-letter language identifiers denote individual languages", and that
> [bh] is inconsistent with this statement, I am not sure for which
> *practical* reason it is important to eliminate this inconsistency. If
> the gain is mainly aesthetic and the cost is high, I would vote
> against the deprecation.
>
> On the other hand, I understand that applications which continue to
> use [bh], although deprecated, would cause much harm, as the code will
> never be used for anything else.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Sebastian
>
|