<Peter_Constable at sil dot org> wrote: >>> There just aren't >>> enough 2-letter codes to go around, and ISO 639-2 has restrictive >>> requirements for doling out 2-letter codes -- it wasn't created for >>> the benefit of locale implementers, but for the benefit of >>> terminologists. >> >> And bibliographers. > > No! The ISO 639-1 standard was developed by terminologists. The ISO > 639-2 was due primarily to bibliographers (but the terminologists had > a finger in the pie).
Sorry, you originally wrote "ISO 639-2 has restrictive requirements for doling out 2-letter codes," which of course is a typo since 639-1 is about 2-letter codes and 639-2 is about 3-letter codes. Instead of reading critically and noticing that you were talking about 2-letter codes, I picked up on "639-2." >>> Luiseño and Tongva simply are not candidates. >> >> Luiseño does have a 3-letter code (lui), > > But not a 2-letter code, and isn't likely to get a 2-letter code. Well, it can't now, because of the policy. >> The requirement that it doesn't meet is that it already has a >> 3-letter code (haw). > > I can see why you might say that, but the discussions didn't go quite > like that. Enough said. I am certainly willing to believe that there were other criteria for denying Hawaiian a 2-letter code. Nonetheless, now that the policy is in place, and Hawaiian has a 3-letter code but no 2-letter code, it cannot subsequently be assigned the latter. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
