Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

Peter Constable <> Wed, 15 July 2009 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B33A6B9F for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwQrk5toZw5i for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085553A6B79 for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:33:45 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:33:45 -0700
From: Peter Constable <>
To: "" <>, 'Randy Presuhn' <>, 'LTRU Working Group' <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:33:43 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
Thread-Index: AcoExZndZwd0A4NlQZKsK0un4iE/ggAUx4RwABHxWeA=
Message-ID: <>
References: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81><1d5f01ca04a2$c495dfd0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <036201ca04a9$c6500ec0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <1dcc01ca0519$f2bbb6b0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
In-Reply-To: <1dcc01ca0519$f2bbb6b0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:34:58 -0000

From: [] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside

> Essentially, all the reasons for including ISO 639-6 are the same as for
> including ISO 639-3.  Unless of course, you think that ISO 639-3 is perfect
> and defines all languages distinctly and that anything else cannot, is not,
> and definitely is not a language.  Then of course you have to decide that
> BCP 47 will only deal with languages and not dialects.  Then, and only then,
> may you exclude ISO 639-6.

Your qualifications notwithstanding, I disagree. While the boundaries of languages and dialects may be debatable generally and in many cases, I think it is the case that there are a good number of cases for which there is current practice and convention in terms of recognizing languages, that this number well exceeds what was covered in 639-1/-2 and is largely encompassed within 639-3. There will remain a relatively small number of cases in which conventionally-recognized language entities are not covered, and those may be covered in 639-6, but if there is conventional acceptance that they should be deemed languages then they are probably candidates for part 3; it would not be worth supporting all of 639-6 just for this particular tail, IMO.

Rather, I think if there is potential benefit from 639-6 it will be in relation to sub-language variations.