Subject: Re: [Ltru] Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo] and [bxx]

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:37:09 -0600

Joan Spanne <ISO639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:

> I will take action to resolve the matter for each of the four (Aruá; 
> Awa; Borna; Murik) by early next week.

I'm delighted to see that the RA is willing to resolve these conflicts
within ISO 639-3, so we don't have to deviate from them.  I'll hold off
on any action here until the new 639-3 files come out.

> I am inclined to accept Doug's recommendations, with the exception of 
> [Aruá]. Precedent within the standard uses a state or province level 
> geographic qualifier, so those would be [arx] "Aruá (Rodonia State)" 
> and [aru] "Aruá (Amazonas State)". If they were geographically 
> proximal to the district level, the next choice of qualifier would be 
> classification based (the highest level where they are distinct).

That is perfectly fine.  I wanted to stay consistent with the precedent,
but couldn't find state-level identifications in the Ethnologue pages
(though I see it now for 'arx').

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru