IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> Sat, 16 June 2007 16:39 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzbJN-00041l-21; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:39:41 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HzbJM-00041g-4O for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:39:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzbJL-00041S-Qv for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:39:39 -0400
Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi ([130.230.4.42]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzbJI-0002Hv-Gd for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:39:39 -0400
Received: from spam2.cs.tut.fi (spam2.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.7]) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE09010A6 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:39:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi ([130.230.4.42]) by spam2.cs.tut.fi (spam2.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.7]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20011-22-3 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:39:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi (mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E18D1043 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:39:35 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:39:34 +0300
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
To: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
In-Reply-To: <E1HzK9i-0003SB-Tf@megatron.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.64.0706161935060.17482@mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi>
References: <E1HzK9i-0003SB-Tf@megatron.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Debbie Garside wrote:

> "It should only be used when other means of identifying the language are
> unavailable."

The meaning of "mis" does not quite fall into the scope of the meaning of 
"to identify", the way I see it. The language is not identified, but some 
indirect information about language is given.

Perhaps "indicating" could be used instead of "identifying", but the 
following formulation might be better:

"It should only be used when more specific means of giving 
information about the language are unavailable."


-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status