Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

["Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"]

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

Michael Everson yazmış:
> At 16:04 -0800 2007-02-03, Doug Ewell wrote:
> 
>> 2.  Do NOT call this new subtag "nta".  (Variant subtags added under
>> RFC 4646 are canonically lowercase, though matching algorithms must be
>> case-insensitive.)  The implied word "new" might unnecessarily
>> reinforce the notion of this 1930s orthography as something "new,"
>> particularly in today's context where some former Soviet minority
>> languages are again adopting (different) Latin orthographies. Instead,
>> call it by its Tatar name "janalif" unless this would be unacceptable
>> to non-Tatar speakers.
> 
> Is it the same as the pan-Turkic alphabet? Panturk would do if it is.
I don't know what alphabet this line refers to.

The thing about janalif is that it is a Qazan Tatar word. And Qazan
Tatar's state is quite dire these days, and so is it's alphabet. I think
nta is a better choice. If we'd like to disambiguate New, how about nta1926?

I'm not against janalif, but it might not match the scope. We can try
it, if you folks insist, and if there are objections in the future,
deprecate it, and assign another variant name.

So, i guess we are down to:
1. nta
2. janalif
3. janalif for tt (and maybe ba), nta for others
4. nta-janalif for tt and maybe ba, nta
5. nta1926
Or if there are better ideas, please speak up.

Thanks,
Reshat.

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

iD8DBQFF0/mKO75ytyYoOa8RAkpYAJwOXRU//XoBTPfUg6qhaHzdYNuyLQCgm+QV
pa7CmejJU4l7jnXP3YtXE3Q=
=/JrI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----