> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Doug Ewell > > Probably. It was the 639-3 analysis (in fact, Peter Constable's) who > > showed that these names represented not languages but collections. > > See http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=bih and > > http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=him for details. > > This set of URLs is an excellent set of resources showing the > > (sometimes obsolete) 639-3 view of various 639-2 codes. > > Excellent they are. Among other things, they show those of us who > don't > know Indian languages that the "-i" ending in "Bihari" and "Himachali" > essentially means "languages." Not in the slightest. The "-i" ending in "X-i" means 'language of region X'. References to "Bihari" (as for Himachali, Rajasthani, etc.) are references to what were assumed to be a distinct language associated with a particular region; but more careful investigation leads to the realization that there are many different languages spoken in the region with no one of them predominant over all others. That is why I analyzed them at that time as collections -- an analysis which stuck in ISO 639-3, even though ISO 639-2 was not updated to align. (That lack of alignment is an oversight that needs to be corrected. It probably didn't happen because it was deemed a collection for purposes of 639-3 and so excluded from 639-3, while attention on alignment issues was given mainly to cases of things included in both 639-3 and 639-2.) 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.