Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

Sorry. What I mean is, when you look at the list I sent out, there are lots
of duplicate names, like Mari, Konkani, Kare, etc. Some of those have
macrolanguage relationships (like Mari), and some don't (like Ainu). There
are 4 possible classes of duplicates:

1. They have no genetic relationship, thus there is no macrolanguage (Ainu)
2. They have a genetic relationship, but neither was in 639-2, so there is
no need for a macrolanguage (Tonga?)
3. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so there is a
macrolanguage (Mari)
4. They have a genetic relationship, and one was in 639-2, so one of them
should be a macrolanguage but isn't. (??)

I wanted confirmation that #4 was empty.

Mark

On Dec 8, 2007 11:35 AM, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  You're going to need to clarify that question for me to understand what
> you have in mind.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* mark.edward.davis@gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:31 AM
> *To:* Peter Constable
> *Cc:* Doug Ewell; LTRU Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"
>
>
>
> I suspected as much. Is that the case for all the other duplicates that
> have one of them defined in 639-2?
>
> Mark
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 11:24 AM, Peter Constable < petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> It is coincidental that an Altaic language spoken in China and an
> unrelated isolate language spoken in China both happen to have "Ainu" as
> their English name.
>
>
>
> Peter
>

-- 
Mark