Trying again without the attachment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Constable
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:28 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: RE: [Ltru] I'm really confused by chinese in 3066bis
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Doug Ewell
> Additionally, the concept of "a dominant language within the group"
> may be well-defined for Chinese and Arabic, but there are 55 other
> macrolanguages currently defined. We would essentially be getting
> ourselves into the same controversy... [b]y pronouncing one language
> "dominant," ...
I will remind people that last November I sent an attachment with my analysis of the macro-language entries in ISO 639-3, attached again here for convenience, in which I take a stab at categorizing according to degree of usage in ICTs and whether there is a single, dominant language. Here is group #2:
2. Macrolanguage ID used in ICT, and there is a single, dominant variety
ara (E15: arb dominant) = ar
arb = Standard Arabic
- aao abh abv acm acq acw acx acy adf aeb aec afb ajp apc
apd arq ars ary arz auz avl ayh ayl ayn ayp bbz pga shu ssh
kok (E14: knn dominant)
knn
- gom
msa (E15: mly dominant) = ms
mly
- btj bve bvu coa jax max meo mfa mqg msi vkt xmm
swa (E15: swh dominant) = sw (CLDR)
swh
- swc
uzb (E15: uzn dominant) = uz
uzn
- uzs
zho (E14: collection) = zh
cmn
- cdo cjy cpx czh czo gan hak hsn mnp nan wuu yue
> Finally, the status of any given language as a macrolanguage (and
> consequently the Macrolanguage field within draft-4646bis) is subject
> to change at any time by ISO 639-3/MA.
Not exactly: ISO 639-3/MA can't narrow the scope of a macro-language category.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.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.