Talk:ISO 639-2

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[untitled][edit]

What's the difference between "bibliographic use" and "terminological use"?--218.102.231.133 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference reflects the way that ISO 639-2 was put together. For about twenty years before ISO 639-2, libraries used a three-letter code to reference the language in which a book or article was written. Most of these codes were based on the English name for the language, like ger for German. The two-letter code ISO 639 (which later became ISO 639-1) was often based on the native name for a language, like de for German. It was felt that the larger ISO 639-2 standard should reflect the policy of part one rather than that of the library codes. However, lobbying from libraries, who would be a major user of the standard, forced a compromise. On the twenty-two codes where there is significant difference between library codes and ISO 639-1 codes, ISO 639-2 provides two codes, each reflecting one of these codes. The library codes from the basis of the bibliographic code, and ISO 639-1 formsthe basis of the terminological code. For most uses, where there is no existing coding system, the terminological codes are prefered. The draft ISO 639-3 standard uses terminological codes where there are two ISO 639-2 codes. To sum up, German has ISO 639-1 de, ISO 639-2/B ger, ISO 639-2/T deu and ISO 639-3 deu. --Gareth Hughes 14:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--218.102.231.133 02:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic codes are an anglocentric atavism and practically deprecated. RFC 3066 says: [2.3 Choice of language tag] 3. When a language has no ISO 639-1 2-character code, and the ISO 639-2/T (Terminology) code and the ISO 639-2/B (Bibliographic) code differ, you MUST use the Terminology code. NOTE: At present, all languages for which there is a difference have 2-character codes, and the displeasure of developers about the existence of 2 code sets has been adequately communicated to ISO. So this situation will hopefully not arise.--84.188.172.180 18:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

col: Shilluk[edit]

Hello, i have a question. In the "Collective language codes" section there's the line "col Shilluk language".

But Shilluk is a language not "languages" (Shilluk language), so it can't be a collective language. And its code is "shk", not "col", and Shilluk has only a 639-3 code, see: List of ISO 639-2 codes, Documentation for ISO 639 identifier: shk, at SIL, ISO 639 Code Tables /S, at SIL

"col" = Columbia-Wenatchi, and also has just a 639-3 code (Columbia-Moses language), so it's also not a collective language (see also: ISO 639 Code Tables /C, at SIL, Documentation for ISO 639 identifier: col, at SIL).

And both (shk/Shilluk & col/ColWen) are missing from the official code lists of ISO 639-2 & 639-5 (see: Codes arranged alphabetically by alpha-3/ISO 639-2 Code, ISO 639-5 codes ordered by Identifier; also: List of ISO 639-2 codes & List of ISO 639-5 codes)

So i think it is maybe a mistake. Or not? Thanks for the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELVe (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-languages[edit]

What ISO are of Proto-Baltic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic?--Ed1974LT (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]