Yes, I agree that an inverted form is a different way of displaying it.
The issue is how to document in 639-2. In 639-3 you only list one
language name per line. In 639-2 we have alternative names which we list
together separated by a semicolon, although in the far left column we
only list the language that is in the appropriate order. We don't
generate the inverted forms automatically (perhaps 639-3 does?).

So we have 2 choices:
1. Add the alternative inverted form as an additional alternative
That would mean in the current way of doing things:
Now: Official Aramaic (700-300 BCE); Imperial Aramaic (700-300 BCE)
would become:
Official Aramaic (700-300 BCE); Imperial Aramaic (700-300 BCE);
Aramaic, Official (700-300BCE); Aramaic, Imperial (700-300 BCE)

(Note that currently the way we display things in the list by name of
language is in the left column is the name in alphabetical order, and
the next column is all the alternative names for the language separated
by a semicolumn.)
2. Rely on the search function for the user to find the main language
name (e.g. Aramaic)
This is listed on the contents page for the code list, but could be
made more prominent.
If you type in Aramaic you get to the appropriate place.

I suppose when we get to the standard as database we can have a
different approach but that is not reality yet, so what shall we do in
the meanwhile?


>>> Joan Spanne <[log in to unmask]> 3/3/2009 11:37:51 AM >>>
An "inverted" form of a name is not a different name, only a different
of displaying it. See 

The ISO 639-3 download table Language Name Index also provides an


Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
2009-03-02 03:54 PM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

[log in to unmask] 

AW: Aramaic

I think that a user should have all options to look for any of the
any "accustomed" form (included inversion):

Under the assumption (assumed, not decided) that Official Aramaic is
preferred name coming first and Imperial Aramaic also a preferred name
coming second and Aramaic the deprecated name:
The entry horizontally displayed would look like: Official Aramaic, 
Aramaic, Aramaic 

and in an index, or when searching:
Aramaic see Official Aramaic
Aramaic, Imperial see Official Aramaic
Aramaic, Official see Official Aramaic
Imperial Aramaic see Official Aramaic
Official Aramaic

In terminology management systems it is state-of-the-art to use layout
features and position for distinguishing between these (sometimes
differences, such as for example:
Official Aramaic (first position in the entry display, boldface, red) 
Imperial Aramaic (second position in the entry display, boldface, red)

Aramaic (third position in the entry display, normal, black)

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im
Rebecca S Guenther
Gesendet: Montag, 02. März 2009 21:47
An: [log in to unmask] 
Betreff: Aramaic

In 2007 we changed the language  name for "arc" from "Aramaic" to 
Aramaic (700-300 BCE); Imperial Aramaic (700-300 BCE)" to clarify the
period of the language that it was identifying.
However, we now have no listing for it under "Aramaic", which someone 
certainly look for (i.e. in the "A'" part of the alphabet).
When you click on "more" under ISO 639-3 it takes you to the Linguist
which calls it "Imperial Aramaic" and lists alternative names
Aramaic", "Standard Literary Aramaic" and "Aramaic".
It seems to me we need a listing either under "Aramaic" or "Aramaic,
Biblical" or "Aramaic (Official)". There are lots of possibilities.

Is anyone else concerned about this?