For long time from now, registry.paratext.org is giving error telling that Malvi (iso code - mup) is a language variant of Rajasthani (raj) and it is forcing to use raj instead of iso code mup.
In 2000 IICCC conducted a language Survey (Research) among the Malvi speakers of Madhya Pradesh, India (published report in 2009) and found out that Malvi is a distinct language of 10 million speakers (The present speakers are considered as 20 Million). You can read the survey report here. https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8984
I wonder why Paratext is forcing to use the Macro language code when there is a specific iso code for that language is available? This is the same issue for Dhundari
In fact there is no language called Rajasthani. A survey conducted in 2002 by NLCI surveyors (published in 2012 -https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/50806) found out that Marwari is considered to be the standard form of Rajasthani (I was part in the survey). That means there is no specific language called Rajasthani, instead Marwari is considered as Rajasthani.
Malvi is spoken not in Rajasthan but in Madhya Pradesh. So this is not a Rajasthani variety.
This is my humble request to Paratext admin or team or whoever is concerned to maintain the iso code of the language instead of assigning the iso code of other languages.
Following is the screenshot of the registry.paratext.org of Malvi project.
