Here are more of my comments on the document "Issues to resolve in ISO 639." As I mentioned in my previous message, the document itself may be found at: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=PCUnicodeDocs&highlight=#367db883 . These comments complete my response to the recommendations in part 5 on macro-language changes. 5.26. Konkani. Quite a few library items in Goanese Konkani have used [kok]; therefore I recommend that this be treated as a macrolanguage encompassing both Standard Konkani and Goanese Konkani. 5.28. Kongo. I agree with the recommendation that Kongo [kon] be considered a macrolanguage encompassing both languages known as Kongo, but excluding Kituba. The MARC list can be revised. 5.30. Kurdish. I agree with the recommendation that Kurdish be considered a macrolanguage encompassing both northern and southern Kurdish. 5.31. Mandingo. A review of the Library of Congress database shows that [man] has been used for Mandinka and Malinka, but also for the Kita and Kankan varieties. I would, therefore, recommend option 2 (include all varieties that use some form of these names) but consider this a macrolanguage (M) instead of a collection (C). 5.32. Malay. I have an alternative recommendation. I recommend that Malay [ms/msa/may] be considered a macrolanguage encompassing all forms of the Local Malay group that use the name Malay. This would include Bahasa Malaysia, Sabah Malay, and some other forms but exclude the Creole forms and Local Malay languages that are not known by the name Malay. 5.35. Marwari. I agree with the recommendation that Marwari [mwr] be considered a macrolanguage encompassing Marwari of both India and Pakistan as well as Mewari. 5.36. Norwegian. I agree with the recommendation that Norwegian [no/nor] be considered a macrolanguage encompassing Nynorsk and Bokmaal. 5.38. Oromo. I agree that Oromo should be designated a macro-language, but I suggest that Orma (also called Orma-Oromo) be included in the scope of this definition along with Southern, Eastern, and West-Central Oromo. 5.39. Persian. I agree with the recommendation that Persian be considered a macro-language encompassing both Eastern and Western Persian. 5.40. Pushto. I agree with the recommendation that Pushto be considered a macro-language encompassing Northern, Southern and Central Pashto. 5.41. Songhai. According to the descriptions in Ethnologue there appears to be a dialect continuum here between Dendi, Zarma, and Songhai. I suggest that we treat Songhai as a collective designation for either the southern sub-group of the Songhai group or for the entire group of Songhai languages listed in Ethnologue. 5.43 Swahili. I agree with the recommendation that Swahili [sw/swa] be considered a macro-language encompassing the Swahili of eastern Africa and the Congo. The MARC list could be revised to match this usage. What will be the difference between the ISO captions for the macrolanguage and Swahili of eastern Africa? 5.45. Ukrainian/Rusyn. I recommend that [uk/ukr] by limited to Ukrainian only, excluding Rusyn. Rusyn seems to be developing as a separate language. The MARC code list can be revised.