[log in to unmask]">

The claim of 30,000,000 speakers seems suspicious to me. I can’t find references to this language at the Central Institute of Indian Languages web site (www.ciil.org). At that size, it would be on a par with several of the major languages of India.


My primary question is whether this language meets the 50-document criterion for 639-2. Obviously it will have an ID in 639-3; the question here is whether to add it to 639-2. The request does not appear to provide specific details related to this criterion.


The Angika web site mentioned (www.angika.com) gives information about literature in the Angika language, but appears to be, itself, entirely in English.


The Google sub-site that is mentioned (http://www.google.com/intl/bh/) is described by Google as being in Bihari, and uses “bh” accordingly. Of course, Ethnologue views “Bihari” as a cover term for several languages of Bihar state, and on that basis I’ve suggested that we re-analyze “Bihari” as a region-based collection (and hence change the name to “Bihari languages”. So, the Google site may well be in Angika. What’s unusual, though, is that it uses Latin script rather than Devanagari.


Should we be asking the submitter for evidence of the 50-doc requirement (and in the process clarify that Angika will be included in 639-3)?




Peter Constable