Print

Print


I thought we had resolved the issues with Bihari and Himachali some time
ago.  We were going to treat them as collective entities.  Himachali
would be equivalent to Western Pahari.  The only peculiarity for Bihari
is that it is included in ISO639-1 which doesn't include collective
terms.

Milicent Wewerka



>>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 7/8/2008 11:09 PM >>>
We also have consistency issues for him (Himachali) and bih (Bihari):
in preparing the draft tables for 639-3, it was assumed that these would
be changed to collections. I presented that proposal to the JAC in my
Issues to Resolve doc, but there was never any specific JAC action. Now
the 639-3 site presents these as collections but they are still
presented in 639-2 as individual languages and are not included in
639-5.

These three inconsistencies need to be resolved ASAP. I propose that
all three be considered collections, and that the 639-2 and 639-5 tables
be updated accordingly.


Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
>
> I see that in a message on 22 Nov. 2006 the following was suggested
and
> then later implemented in 639-2:
>
> "ID = day "Dayak" (ItoR section 3.2). The name "Dayak" is an
ethnonym
> used
> to refer to minorities of Borneo speaking many different languages
from
> several distinct branches of the Western Malayo-Polynesian phylum.
>
> Recommendation: change scope of day to collection; change name to
"Land
> Dayak languages"
>
> Action needed if recommendation accepted: change name on 639-2/-3
> sites"
>
> So it looks to me that whoever compiled 639-5 missed this one. It's
in
> the
> change notice as name changed to denote collection on 2006-10-31.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > It would really be helpful to get some comment on this from LOC
(the
> > designated RA for 639-5) or from Havard (the project editor for
> > 639-5).
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
> > > Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:34 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask] 
> > > Subject: FW: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
> > >
> > > Here's another report regarding a data issue in 639-5. IIUC, the
-5
> > > data was provided by BSI -- I assume it's correct.
> > >
> > > I haven't heard any response on the issue with 'car' other than
> from
> > > Debbie and Joan. These issues should be addressed quickly, I
think.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> > > Doug Ewell
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> > > To: LTRU Working Group
> > > Subject: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
> > >
> > > I found this while preparing the 639-2, 639-3, and 639-5 lists
for
> the
> > > new Scope field:
> > >
> > > Code element 'day' ("Land Dayak languages") is present in 639-2,
> but
> > > not
> > > 639-5.  I was under the impression that 639-5 would contain all
of
> the
> > > 639-2 collection codes and then some.
> > >
> > > Is this another coordination oopsie that needs to be resolved by
> the RA?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> > > http://www.ewellic.org 
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html 
> > > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ltru mailing list
> > > [log in to unmask] 
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru 
> >