Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language Tag Special Cases

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:29:39 +0200

John Cowan wrote:

> Mark Davis scripsit:
> 
> > That is one interpretation, but it is not supported by the text.  
> 
> As I have argued repeatedly, the normative content of ISO 639 is
> insufficient to properly interpret it.

Well, 'mis' is the only collection code that CAN be fully interpreted
from the text of ISO 639-2 alone (as I have shown). But it is (or at
least seems to be) flexible in that different sets of other classifications
may be available in different settings.

> > I think the best thing we could do at this point would be to strongly
> > discourage the use of "mis" in 4646bis 
> 
> +1, as there will be a sufficient number of specific language codes
> for almost anything, and "und" is satisfactory as a representation of
> ignorance or indifference.

I would tend to agree, but then by implication this holds for ALL of
the collection codes in a 4646bis setting (which covers all known
individual (modern or semimodern) "natural" languages of this planet).

So if you want to strongly discourage the use of 'mis', then also
strongly discourage the use of 'tai', 'fiu', etc. collection codes.

> > The text doesn't, as far as I can see, support the contention, and I
> > haven't seen anything from John or Peter to contradict that. Much as
> > I respect their judgments on a whole variety of subjects, on this one
> > I think they are interpreting the text as they think it should have
> > been written, not as it is.
> 
> I am not interpreting the text at all: I am relaying the established
> interpretive tradition.  By its very nature, an interpretive tradition
> is outside the text.
> 
> > "Mis" as exclusionary makes sense any time you are in an environment
> > that forces a disjunctive partition.
> 
> The partition need not be fully disjunctive; a hierarchical partition
> works fine too, with "mis" as one of the top-level partitions, the one
> which includes everything not included elsewhere.

And that is what ISO 639-2 says, however with a vague "available", which
depends on the setting. In a 4646bis (full ISO 639-3) setting, there is
just about always a more specific code available, even down to individual
language.

> > But ISO 639 does not require a partition.
> 
> It has traditionally been interpreted as one.

"Miscellaneous" does mean "anything". But it is an "anything" for things
not otherwise classified. *coverage* (everything) vs. *recommended use*
(not otherwise classified).

		/kent k

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:40:18 -0700

From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:[email-masked]]

> "Miscellaneous" does mean "anything". But it is an "anything"
> for things not otherwise classified. *coverage* (everything)
> vs. *recommended use* (not otherwise classified).

I don't think I'd express things the way you do, but I start to think that, in practical terms, our views are similar.

Using an example, an application of ISO 639 could choose to use as its inventory {eng, fra, deu, und, zxx, mis}, in which case mis would encompass Swedish and Italian and several thousand other languages *in that application context*.

I think you'd agree with that.

In the context of BCP47, mis would encompass only a very small set of languages (once 639-3 is included, a very small set indeed).

Peter