Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
What point are you getting at? (I really haven't a clue.)How reliable and useful is the info, and should the registry contain a source indication for alpha-3 language subtags if there are major differences between 639-2 and 639-3. Maybe it's possible to delete "orq" from 639-3 later, but it's not possible to remove it from the LSR.
Even if Orcish is goofy and fake, it is part of the Final Draft Standard, every bit as much as German. We don't have any justification for picking the code elements we like from any ISO standard and discarding the others.
One of my personal "least favorites" in ISO 639-3 is Yinglish ("yib"), which is really just a smattering of Yiddish-based and -inspired words embedded in normal English. It's not even as much of a dialect as Boontling. The description in Ethnologue calls it "a variety of English influenced by Yiddish (lexically, particularly, but also grammatically and phonetically)" but no evidence is given for differences other than vocabulary. The Wikipedia article focuses entirely on vocabulary.
Nevertheless, there it is in ISO/FDIS 639-3, and so there it is in draft-4645bis.
Orcish and its 30 words do give me renewed hope for Unilingua and its 187-page textbook:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/c/c7/Unilingua.pdf -- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.