> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Phillips, Addison > I think you might be ascribing too much meaning to the concept of > macrolanguage. Macrolanguage records a particular relationship that > exists between language *codes* assigned by ISO 639, which is that some > language codes assigned by ISO 639-3 are encompassed by codes assigned > previously to a broader range of languages. The macrolanguage has > little to do with the *actual* linguistic relationship between the > encompassed languages (save that the association tends to exist because > the languages are related somehow). Well, a bit more than that: they have to be closely related. English and Hindi are related; many linguists consider Mandarin and Tibetan to be related. But these would never have been combined in a macrolanguage But as for what can be assumed in terms of intelligibility between encompassed languages, your follow-on statement is certainly valid: > Many languages that do not have a > macrolanguage mapping are actually more closely related or mutually > intelligible than some pairs of macrolanguage related languages. 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.