 |
 |
I think "uncoded languages" communicates the intent of the code element: it is what remains outside the specifically (whether individually or collectively) identified languages, but still within human language space. I could see a particular application making use of [mis] as a marker to use a separate field specifically used for locally defined code elements (the qaa-qtz code space). I also think that it should be identified as a Special code element, rather than as Collective. Happy Friday, Joan +++++++++++ Joan Spanne ISO 639-3/RA SIL International 7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd Dallas, TX 75236 [log in to unmask] "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 05/04/2007 12:45 PM Please respond to ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis I would prefer "uncoded languages" - if only not to stimulate people to (be lazy and) avoid checking properly... Best regards Christian -- Dr. Christian Galinski, Director Infoterm - International Information Centre for Termninology Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, 1060 Vienna, Austria TEL +43-664-3446181 - FAX +43-1-524 0606-99 http://www.infoterm.info - [log in to unmask] _______________________________________ Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide ---- Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> schrieb: > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther > > > I would agree with the intent... > > Good. Thanks for confirming that. > > > > Also, in the sentence below... > > it would be clearer to say: > > "If a new language is added to ISO 639-2 which was previously > > listed as a language under "mis"... > > A problem with that is that ISO 639 has never listed languages under mis. > > > > I would prefer calling it something like "Other languages" > > or "Other unrelated languages". Saying "Unsupported languages" > > doesn't make sense to me-- it's not clear what isn't supported. > > If they're really "unsupported" there wouldn't be an identifier > > for them. It's really more "Unenumerated languages"-- or > > miscellaneous languages that don't belong in any defined group. > > Joan indicated "unsupported" was better to her than "miscellaneous". I see what you say about "unsupported", though. > > Some possibilities: > > - Unsupported languages > - Other languages > - Other unrelated languages > - Unenumerated languages > - Uncoded languages > - Other uncoded languages > > Or maybe others have other ideas. > > Perhaps it might be useful if each of us indicated a couple of choices in order of preference. My picks: > > 1) Other languages > 2) Uncoded languages > > > > Peter