On 07/30/2002 10:54:48 AM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>> No! The ISO 639-1 standard was developed by terminologists. The ISO
>> 639-2 was due primarily to bibliographers (but the terminologists had
>> a finger in the pie).
>
>Sorry, you originally wrote "ISO 639-2 has restrictive requirements for
>doling out 2-letter codes,"
Doh! Mea culpa.
>>> Luiseņo does have a 3-letter code (lui),
>>
>> But not a 2-letter code, and isn't likely to get a 2-letter code.
>
>Well, it can't now, because of the policy.
Yes, well, assuming it's an ISO policy that would be the case.
>I am certainly willing to believe that there were other criteria for
>denying Hawaiian a 2-letter code. Nonetheless, now that the policy is
>in place, and Hawaiian has a 3-letter code but no 2-letter code, it
>cannot subsequently be assigned the latter.
Yes, well, assuming it's an ISO policy that would be the case. (Enough
said.)
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 10:51:32 EDT