Print

Print


"Remainder group" sounds the most understandable to me. Maybe there would
still need to be a change in definition like "language group consisting 
of the remaining languages that are not specified" or something like that.

Rebecca

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, [iso-8859-1] Håvard  Hjulstad wrote:

> Dear JAC members,
>  During the meeting of ISO/TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 in Provo earlier this month
> we discussed among many other things the finalization of ISO 639-5.
> That part will be submitted for FDIS within a few weeks.
>  ISO 639-5 needs a terms for a "language group minus a specified set
> of members of that group". This is needed to describe the relationship
> between, e.g. "Germanic languages" in 639-5 and "other Germanic
> languages" (or "Germanic languages (other)") in 639-2 (i.e. all
> Germanic languages that haven't been specifically identified in
> 639-2). With the completion of ISO 639-3 this becomes an urgent issue.
> The concept isn't at all complicated, but what is the term?

>  The current version of 639-5 uses "rest group". At the meeting some
> people stated a problem with that term. Mike Roberts promised to ask
> colleagues within the documentation/library environment. His feedback
> is that "there doesn't seem to be a technical terms for this concept,
> but we believe that remainder group or residual group are both
> preferable, perhaps with residual group being nearer to the French".

>  Personally I don't have any strong feelings toward any of the terms
> "rest group", "remainder group", or "residual group". Do members of
> the JAC have opinions?
>  
> Best regards,
> Håvard
>  
> --------------------
> Håvard Hjulstad
>   Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>   tel: (+47) 67838600  |  faks / fax: (+47) 67838601
>   direkte tel / direct tel: (+47) 67838645
>   [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>   http://www.standard.no/ <http://www.standard.no/> 
> --------------------
>  
>