I wonder if the identifier were [xyz]
instead of [rum] or [ron] would there be less objection? (The same would
be true for Catalan and Valencian, and others.) I am as aware as all of
you that the identifier is not intended to be an abbreviation, and I am
not suggesting changing the identifier, so please don't jump on that. I
am looking for a way to communicate to the Moldovan community that "Moldovan"
is not a secondary or lesser name or variety of the language.
I have someone coming to meet with me tomorrow from the Moldovan embassy.
He mentioned that the issue has been in the press (and Michael forwarded
something from the Romanian newspaper which I couldn't read-- it has also
been in the Moldovan newspaper). Of course the whole thing was taken out
of context and apparently the article in the Moldovan paper said that because
we made this change that the US government supports combining Romanian
and Moldovan-- and maybe even in their dispute over whether they should
be one country (that was the implication-- I'm not sure exactly what was
said). This of course is silly, but shows how important these people consider
their languages having separate identities.
I will report after my meeting with him, but I did go back and look at
some old messages (which I wish I had looked at before we made this decision
a few weeks ago) and found these:
The whole conversation took place in July 2005; you can see in the archives
I am sort of sorry we didn't consult more widely, but I guess it is too
I will point out to him that retired code elements do not mean that they
are not in records. However, we have now removed "mo/mol" from
Are there any other options as to how to document this?
Of course, we have always taken currently unused codes out, so this would
be a change in our process and I am not sure how it would work with our
MARC language code list-- it lists the deprecated codes in a separate section
and not in the main part.