From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 10:56:01 EDT
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