On 07/30/2002 10:54:48 AM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>> 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," Doh! Mea culpa. >>> Luise�o 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. Yes, well, assuming it's an ISO policy that would be the case. >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. Yes, well, assuming it's an ISO policy that would be the case. (Enough said.) - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
