Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
Even if that interpretation of "Himachali" and "Bihari" is true (which I doubt a bit, they look like inflections rather than composite words; I guess "Bihari people" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihari_people) does not mean "Bihar languages people"...),
It almost certainly is an inflection or particle of some sort.
that does not prevent the expressions "Himachal languages" and "Bihar languages" which conforms to the 639-2 rule (for good or bad)...
If there is a "639-2 rule," it is that 639-2 associates names with code elements in whatever way they see fit. The names "Bihari" and "Himachali" came from 639-2; I assume they are following their own rules, if any.
Perhaps you meant the 639-5 rule, whereby 639-5 applies a standard template of "X languages" to most collection codes (but not all; see "Armenian (family)", for instance) and converts remainder codes to full group codes in the process. We in LTRU regard the 639-5 names and denotations as superseding those of 639-2, for purposes of the LSR. But these two codes are not in 639-5, so we have no 639-5 name or denotation to go by; we are stuck with what 639-2 gave us.
In an environment where we are so rigid about adhering to the precise ISO 639 names that we will have to carry both "Macedo Romanian" and "Macedo-Romanian" as separate Description fields, and where I felt I had to ask the group to recapitalize "Sign languages", I don't think you will get much support for adding the word "languages" to these two ISO 639 names.
-- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.