RE: [Ltru] Punjabi

"Don Osborn" <dzo@bisharat.net> Tue, 13 March 2007 19:56 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 1HRD6X-0004pH-U8; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:56:17 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRD6W-0004pC-Iy for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:56:16 -0400
Received: from 113166.kabissa.org ([72.32.199.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRD6Q-0005vh-DU for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:56:16 -0400
Received: (qmail 8855 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2007 14:55:16 -0500
Received: from pool-72-75-17-82.washdc.east.verizon.net (HELO IBM92AA25595C4) (72.75.17.82) by 72.32.229.137 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2007 14:55:15 -0500
From: "Don Osborn" <dzo@bisharat.net>
To: "'Mark Davis'" <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>, <ISO639-3@sil.org>, <iso639-2@loc.gov>
References: <30b660a20703131211r20b4ee68ja6e7670b74e65c4c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <30b660a20703131211r20b4ee68ja6e7670b74e65c4c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Punjabi
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:55:04 -0400
Message-ID: <008101c765a9$7f4d01a0$7de704e0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acdlo4R5+vCaS32kROuxMUTBiJJLbgAA3xow
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cdb443e3957ca9b4c5b55e78cfcf4b26
Cc: "'Sarmad Hussain, Dr.'" <sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1632372693=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Mark. An addendum to your question would be what they write. Might there be a pa-PK written standard? I don’t know, just asking. 

 

I will take the liberty of cc’ing the question to Dr. Sarmad Hussein of the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences in Lahore, who also heads the PAN L10n project in Asia ( http://www.panl10n.net ), in case he has any thoughts. 

 

Don

 

 

From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:12 PM
To: LTRU Working Group; ISO639-3@sil.org; iso639-2@loc.gov
Subject: [Ltru] Punjabi

 

I have a question about Punjabi. ISO 639-2 gives "pan" as Punjabi. ISO 639-3 divides Punjabi into three separate codes:

pmu    Mirpur Panjabi
pnb    Western Panjabi
pan    Panjabi // called Eastern Panjabi in the Ethnologue. 

It looks from this that according to ISO 639-3, there is no macro language for Panjabi; Pakistanis don't speak "pan" (= "pa"), even as a macro language they speak something else. So a language pa-PK (or locale pa_PK) is probably a mistake. Is this a fair statement? 

-- 
Mark 

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