Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

Doug Ewell dewell at
Mon Nov 13 15:00:28 CET 2006

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

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

I can't disagree, but don't think that's sufficient to disqualify them 
(I know you have other objections).  At least it is relatively clear 
what is being requested.  Most of the rambling is about the exact choice 
of subtag.

> Why is GNU libc discussed here?

Something about the best choice of subtag.  I tried to address that.

> 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?

I believe it's an alphabet that imposes a particular orthography, if 
that makes any sense.  The set of available letters helps to determine 
the possible spellings.

> The source cited is a Wikipedia article, which includes the following 
> reference: IQTElif is further justified here: 
> -- 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.

I agree about the political bias, and mentioned that in my post. 
Whether IQTElif is illegal is irrelevant to whether it exists.  As for 
Janalif, it may have been created for political purposes, but its 
existence (or not) is an independent fact.

> 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, mirxan, Qorban, & Fajzullin's 1938 Rusca-tatarca 
> syzlek (see Kazan Tatar at What 
> about the numerous alphabets for Turkic languages in Allworth's 
> Nationalities of the Soviet East?

Perhaps Reshat can be persuaded to answer these specific questions.

> 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.

You wrote:  "until two of the three important and) relevant books in my 
OWN library are mentioned in a bibliography regarding this, I am 
disinclined to consider approval."  That's not final enough.  "I reject 
this request on the grounds of XYZ" would have been.

> 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.

Two particular orthographies for Tatar, it seems to me.

>> 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.


> 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.

You're the Reviewer; you can use list consensus as a guide if you 
choose, but are not bound by it.  My main point is that if you wish to 
reject them, you have to reject them; ignoring them and expecting them 
to go away on their own is not a valid option.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list