Re: Persian or Farsi?

Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 10:56:01 EDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"

    Doug Ewell wrote on 05/25/2003 08:38:21 PM:

    > > ISO 639 is normative on the code elements; the names are informative,
    > > so I would not follow its names as normative. I would tend to favour
    > > the ordinary Oxford as an English authority, and certainly the view
    > > of the Academy in Iran, first. (As it happens they all agree on
    > > "Persian".)
    > It's true that the names of languages in ISO 639 are not normative.
    > However, I imagine them to have been proposed, discussed, and approved

    The names do get discussed and voted on.

    Without meaning to imply anything about the intent of the standard, I do
    not see any indication in it that the names are informative rather than
    normative. I don't see any indication either way, actually, though the fact
    that title of the standard is "Codes for the representation of **names** of
    languages" (emphasis mine) could be taken to suggest that the names must
    have some kind of normative status. (IMO, that is not what the standard
    *should* be doing, but that's another matter.)

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 11:53:55 EDT