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.
