The main problem with ISO 639-1 & -2 is that nobody looked to see if
they were covering all of the languages meeting the criteria.
Now, any language which doesn't have an ISO 639-1 or -2 code but
_does_ meet the criteria, must have an application submitted by you
for its inclusion by them. (yes, that sentence purposefully was an
awkward one).
ISO isn't doing any work whatsoever to distinguish between solidly
established written languages and everything else.
The main requirement, IIRC, is that there be at least 50 documents in
the language at any library.
That wrongfully excludes many languages which are written but rarely
published, or which are written but only have very minor publications.
Mark
On 10/11/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/8/05, Andre Engels
<andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2005/11/8, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>om>:
- tpi (tok pisin, recent conlang, 160 articles),
tpi *is* an official ISO 639-2 code. It is also not a conlang, but a
creole - I think you're confusing it with Tokipona, for which the
Wikipedia has been closed.
Whoops, it certainly is. Boy do I have papaya on my face...
Tokipona, while it lastedas a WM project, did represent another reason
some people wish to go outside the ISO.
Apart from that, I am of the opinion that it is
good to go by ISO
639-2, but as a default rather than an absolute. That is, we don't
always follow ISO 639-2, but for languages on the list we will include
unless there is a strong argument being made against, whereas
languages not on the list will not be included only if there is a
strong argument being made in support. Personally I would like to be
slightly more strict - ISO 639-2 for living languages, but dead
languages will have to show that there is recent material written in
the language as well, rather than just an ISO 639-2 code because of
old work.
It should always be possible to make strong arguments for
exceptions... though perhaps they should be limited to a well-defined
space (perhaps even off the mailing lists :-).
As for ISO 639-3, this is not at all a patch or substitute for 639-2.
Each layer of language-codes has a lower bar for what it means to be a
[meaningful] language. -1 and -2 are specifically focused on l
anguage designations that are useful to written work...
We should make use of the good work ISO is doing to distinguish
between these language categories, where we can.
SJ
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l