LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: USSR Latin (ussrlatn)

["Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Doug Ewell yazmış:
> "Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)" <tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com> wrote:
> 
>> az-ussrlatn: Birlәşdirilmiş Jeni (1930larda) Türk Әlifbasь
>> az-Latn, or az: Birlәşdirilmiş Yeni (1930larda) Türk Әlifbası
> 
> At first I noticed that Reşat used a Cyrillic letter, U+044C CYRILLIC
> SMALL LETTER SOFT SIGN, in the first line, and thought that might
> identify a possible difference between ordinary "Latn" orthographies and
> the mixed Latin-Cyrillic one he is describing.
> 
> Then I noticed that *both* lines used a Cyrillic schwa, U+04D8, instead
> of the Latin equivalent U+018F.  So maybe there is no distinction here
> after all.
Well, actually, i didn't realize the same character had 2 different
codes for Latin and Cyrillic, and i just copied that over from
somewhere. To me personally, schwa is not a real latin letter, but i
guess tastes differ. ;)
These are the main letters in the 1930s alphabets that i believe are
artificial:
Ƣ
Ь
Ә
Ө
Ŋ ŋ (there's actually no Unicode code for this letter, AFAIK, because
it's supposed to have a tail like U+049a does; so this is just a common
approximation, if one could say that)

And their unicode codes (or at least one of their versions):
U+01a2
U+042c
U+04d8 (or U+018F)
U+04e8
U+014a

Azeri is the only language that left any trace of them in the new Latin
alphabet: Azerbaijani language left U+018F in the new version as well,
which is why the phrase above looks somewhat similar to what it looked
liked in 1930s.

> 
> Apparently Reşat is proposing only one variant subtag, not necessarily
> opening the door for a whole set of them with only minor differences
> between them.
Well, i think i don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be
one subtag or multiple ones, but to me it looks like they were all
pushed down by one communist government and enforced around the same
time frame, so it probably makes sense to have one subtag. Given that
such a subtag would go next to a language, it really leaves no room for
ambiguity and mix-up of say unified alphabet's Qarachay adaptation being
used for Uzbek language. In fact, what i think i can re-tract one
opinion i had before, that if ussrlatn or some other subtag is assigned
to Turkic languages, that it couldn't then be used for non-Turkic ones.
I think the same subtag can actually be used just fine, just its
description in this case would probably need to be different for Turkic
languages vs. others: for Turkic languages it could say something like
"(Adapation of) Unified Turkic Alphabet (Latin) based on decision of
Baku Conference of 1926 that was used until about 1940", whereas for
other languages it could have a different description, like "Latin
alphabet used in U.S.S.R. during Latinization initiative of late 1920s,
and 1930s."

Thanks.

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFRQ0RO75ytyYoOa8RAhF1AJwJtE/ROn1eySBN8rGXsFWttUgMlACfSOs5
zneoUV9LcI0eONSuJ4kCssk=
=kZQ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----