It seems they have completely switched to the Latin alphabet now (the language is being actively standardised) so I don't think using a Runic alphabet for the modern version of the language makes sense. For an eventual Wikisource, though, the Runic alphabet has valid use.

The code issue here is an interesting one. In the first request, 10 years ago, they used the code "dlc", which was included in the draft of ISO 639-3, but not in the final version. I don't have any sources for this (it's a long time ago), but what I heard then was that Elfdalian and Scanian (skånska, code scy) were supposed to be in ISO 639-3, but were not included because the Swedish authorities would refuse to ratify (/accept?) ISO 639-3, ostensibly for political reasons. Now that it has a code, however, I'm more than happy to give this eligible status. The fact that it doesn't (yet) have an Ethnologue page doesn't matter at all.

I'll contact WMSE to see if they would be interested in supporting this language edition. As far as I can tell, there are still no native speakers who have signed up for the proposal.

2017-01-29 9:27 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Mmm... no _Ethnologue_ entry, but ovd is the code, isn't it?
>
> There's another curiosity here, however: The request page suggests an
> autonym in runes, and the Wikipedia page about the language indeed says that
> runes were used for writing this language until very late, but nowadays the
> Latin alphabet is used.

We should see what's the most realistic writing system to them. It's
possible that runic script is indeed quite fine; or they could have a
transliteration engine.

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

--

mvh

Jon Harald Søby