Print

Print


Actually I realized after I sent this on to Havard that it appears he
didn't fill out the proper form-- our revised one requires more
information than he provided. I have emailed him and asked him to fill it
out.

His rationale seems to be that the others in this group are defined and
this one should be too. 

Rebecca

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Milicent K Wewerka wrote:

> Does it meet the requirements for addition to 639-2?  That should be
> considered before it is added.  And as Peter says, why isn't the
> provision of a symbol in 639-3 adequate?
> 
> Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress
> 
> >>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 7/27/2008 4:29 PM >>>
> What's not clear in the request is why he thinks Ladin needs to be
> included in 639-2 - why 639-3 isn't sufficient for his needs.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to adding existing items in 639-3 such
> as this to 639-2.
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 6:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Request - Ladin -- discussion
> 
> 
> Dear JAC members,
> 
> Please see the request below, as well as Rebecca's preliminary
> comments.
> 
> Ladin has been on the JAC's table, and it was rejected in 2000-02. (I
> don't have detailed information, as it was before I started the "JAC
> database".)
> 
> It is correct that the names "Rhaeto-Romance" and "rhéto-roman" were
> used in 639-1; names were finalized as "Romanch" and "romanche" in
> 2006-11.
> 
> The "real issue" here is probably: Should lld (Ladin) as encoded in ISO
> 639-3 be included in the code table of ISO 639-2?
> 
> Best regards,
> Håvard
> 
> --------------------
> Håvard Hjulstad
>   Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>   [log in to unmask] 
> --------------------
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:00 PM
> To: Håvard Hjulstad
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
> 
> Havard:
> 
> Please start discussion on this request (below).
> 
> Ladin is in 639-3 as lld, but not in 639-2 or 639-1.
> 
> Romansh is in 639-2 as roh and 639-1 as rm.
> 
> Fruilian is in 639-2 as fur and not in 639-1.
> 
> Perhaps an earlier version of 639-1 called Romansh the name
> Rhaeto-Romance?
> 
> Of course we will explain to the requester that we would not add an
> alpha-2 code for those that don't have it.
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:05:55 -0400
> From: NDMSO <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request
> 
> ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request.
> 
> English name of Language:   Ladin
> French name of Language:   Ladin
> iso_639_2_b:   ld
> iso_639_2_t:   ld
> 
> change_requested:  In ISO 639-1 there is a code \"rm\" for
> \"Rhaeto-Romance\" \"Rhaeto-Romance\" is only a classificatory entity,
> composed by the 3 distinguished groups: Swiss Romansh (= Rumantsch
> Grischun); Dolomitic Ladin (= Ladin Dolomitan) and Friulian (= Furlan).
> For these three entities there should be a separate code in ISO 639-2.
> We request \"ld\" for \"Dolomitic Ladin\". In this logic there should be
> \"rg\" for Swiss Romansh and \"fu\" for Furlan
> 
> Submitter's name:   Paul Videsott
> Submitter's email :   [log in to unmask] 
> Submitter's status :  Professor of Romance Linguistics at the Free
> University of Bolzano/Bozen (www.unibz.it); responsable for Ladin
> Language
>