It seems they have completely switched to the Latin alphabet now (the
language is being actively standardised) so I don't think using a Runic
alphabet for the modern version of the language makes sense. For an
eventual Wikisource, though, the Runic alphabet has valid use.
The code issue here is an interesting one. In the first request, 10 years
ago, they used the code "dlc", which was included in the draft of ISO
639-3, but not in the final version. I don't have any sources for this
(it's a long time ago), but what I heard then was that Elfdalian and
Scanian (skånska, code scy) were supposed to be in ISO 639-3, but were not
included because the Swedish authorities would refuse to ratify (/accept?)
ISO 639-3, ostensibly for political reasons. Now that it has a code,
however, I'm more than happy to give this eligible status. The fact that it
doesn't (yet) have an Ethnologue page doesn't matter at all.
I'll contact WMSE to see if they would be interested in supporting this
language edition. As far as I can tell, there are still no native speakers
who have signed up for the proposal.
2017-01-29 9:27 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Mmm... no _Ethnologue_ entry, but ovd is the
code, isn't it?
There's another curiosity here, however: The request page suggests an
autonym in runes, and the Wikipedia page about the language indeed says
that
runes were used for writing this language until
very late, but nowadays
the
Latin alphabet is used.
We should see what's the most realistic writing system to them. It's
possible that runic script is indeed quite fine; or they could have a
transliteration engine.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
--
mvh
Jon Harald Søby