Dear Colleagues,

Håvard is right: "Rhaeto-Romance"/"rhéto-roman" was used in 639-1 before 2006.
I would not have any problem in 
- having "Rhaeto-Romance"/"Rhaeto-Romance” encoded as macro-language(?)
- keeping Ladin encoded as lld in 639-3,
- keeping Friulian encoded as fur in 639-2,
- keeping Romansh as it is in 639-1 and 639-2 (definitely enjoying a higher “status” in Switzerland).

In the future ISO 639 database “conflicts/requests” like this should become obsolete.

Best regards

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 Request - Ladin -- discussion

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.


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 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)


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.


---------- 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 (; responsable for Ladin Language