Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

[Michael Everson]

At 23:49 -0800 2006-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
>I'd like to remind the list and the Reviewer 
>that the two registration forms submitted by 
>Reshat Sabiq, for variant subtags related to the 
>Tatar language, have now gone well past the 
>standard two-week review period, and decisions 
>on these requests need to be made.  (The 
>"decision" might be to extend the review period 
>for another two weeks, but simply ignoring the 
>requests will not do.)

I don't understand what it is that he is 
requesting. Both registration requests are long 
and rambling.

>References:
>http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2006-September/005017.html
>(September 26, 48 days ago)

Why is GNU libc discussed here? The request talks 
about about population numbers being "a tad 
confusing" and the proposer's "vague 
remembrances". And it is a request for a "variant 
of a Latin-based alphabet". Is this an 
orthography? Or an alphabet? The source cited is 
a Wikipedia article, which includes the following 
reference: IQTElif is further justified here: 
http://www.ultranet.tv/oyrenmelik/pdf/TatarAlphabet.pdf 
-- on a "Learn Turkish-Tatar-English Easily" 
site. "Justified"? The Wikipedia article is not 
NPOV, going on about Moscow authorities "human 
rights violation" in banning Latin or 
non-Cyrillic alphabets for Volga Tatar. As far as 
I can see, this "alphabet" is just samizdat.

>http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2006-October/005141.html
>(October 21, 22 days ago)

This is even more rambling, going on about the 
proposer's train of thought. What is it about? Is 
it pan-Turkic? Is it Tatar-specific? Where are 
any real references? What is the relation of this 
to, for instance, Nughajbik, Ämirxan, Qorban, & 
Fajzullin's 1938 Rusca-tatarca syzlek (see Kazan 
Tatar at http://www.evertype.com/alphabets/)? 
What about the numerous alphabets for Turkic 
languages in Allworth's Nationalities of the 
Soviet East?

I think I have to reject both of these requests. 
They are underspecified. I believe I had already 
rejected the first on 22 October, though that 
wasn't very final, I admit.

>In general I support them, and feel that they 
>fall outside the current debate over how to 
>encode phonetic transcription models such as IPA.

They're entirely unrelated to that. I know there 
are orthographies for Tatar. I just don't know 
what is being requested here, and there are no 
adequate references.

>They are orthographic conventions used at one 
>time or another by native writers of Tatar (by 
>preference or otherwise) and not for any special 
>linguistic purpose.  To my mind, the requested 
>subtags are similar in nature to the German 
>"1901" and "1996" variant subtags.

Yes, but there we had the Duden.

>As a side note, we should ensure that all 
>political references to the motives for 
>introducing either of these orthographic 
>conventions are removed (e.g. references to 
>"human rights violations").  These do not 
>provide the user with any insight in choosing 
>the correct tag.

To say the least.

Sorry, but I don't believe we are approving these 
as they stand. Please discuss if you feel 
otherwise. I certainly did not detect consensus 
about these on the list.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com