Nearly everything that is considered a “macrolanguage” is in part 2 as a direct corollary with why the notion of “macrolanguage” was introduced in Part 3: it was the solution to the need to rationalize categories in Part 2 that did not align well with linguistic reality but rather conflated distinct varieties together. E.g., “Chinese”. I’m pretty sure that in every one of the original “macrolanguage” cases, you’ll find that MARC has an entry in which that identifier is “used for” multiple varieties.
I am sorry to have to disagree with Mark. I understand that the procedure proposed by Melinda an John is actually better than Mark's, because it most probably better reflects the current usage of "Ancient Greek" [grc] (which will by now, for lack of another more specific code, also be used for Medieval Greek), and, analogously, Sanskrit [san] (which currently is probably also used for Vedic Sanskrit).
Therefore I support the proposal by Melinda and John.
Just curiosity: Are there already codes for "macrolanguages" in Part 2?
And shouldn't [san] and [grc], as well as the two times two more specific codes to be created now, not be among the languages that are not spoken any more, which rather belong to part 3 (or where) than part 2? Are there already examples for dead macrolanguages?
For Ancient Greek, are there also (to be) codes for the major sub-varieties or sub-languages such as Ionic, Doric etc.?
I ask for your understanding if, in the interest of being quick and short, this mail may not fulfil all your expectations on form and politeness.
PD Dr. Sebastian Drude, The Language Archive
Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics
P.O. Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Email: [log in to unmask] – Phone: (+31) 24-3521.470