pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed
addison at amazon.com
Wed Sep 17 01:33:01 CEST 2008
I note that Mark has requested a subtag for explicitly Hanyu Pinyin and not for any other kind of Pinyin. While it is possible for Hanyu (other) pinyin's to be included into a single subtag, I can't tell if that would meet Mark's requirements or not. I would be very astonished and not all that well served if I were to request a subtag 'twain' [to identify the dialect usage of writer Mark Twain] and got instead '1880' [to identify dialectical usages of late-19th-Century American writers] instead. Yes, one encompasses the other. But that doesn't necessarily meet the requirements I am trying to address, and, in this case, which we, as a group, might not fully know.
Mark, as the requester, do you have an opinion or requirements related to this?
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:08 PM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed
> Hi, John, Randy, others:
> Thanks for the information; I think I'm agreed with John here that
> Cantonese Pinyin should not be included in the subtag [pinyin] but
> that Tibetan Pinyin can be--and optionally so can Tongyong Pinyin.
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com
> John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
> Tue Sep 16 15:05:27 CEST 2008
> > Randy Presuhn scripsit:
> >>> 1. How different is the Tongyong Pinyin romanization (the
> >>> Taiwanese romanization) of Mandarin from the Hanyu Pinyin
> >>> of Mandarin?
> >> About as different as Pinyin and Wade-Gile.
> > Quantitatively, no. Of the 412 Modern Standard Mandarin
> > (disregarding tone), Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin differ in
> > spelling of only 81 of them, whereas HYPY and Wade-Giles differ
> in the
> > spelling of 270 of them. The only things that TYPY and WG have
> in common
> > are that they don't have the features, peculiar to HYPY, of
> > the alveolopalatals by writing different initials and of eliding
> > vowels in certain triphthong rhymes.
> Thanks for the info!
> >>> 2. And how different is Tibetan Pinyin from Hanyu Pinyin?
> > By contrast, Tibetan Pinyin is as like HYPY as the nature of
> > will allow it to be.
> That was my understanding
> >> I see no problem with having to use a meta-content description
> >> to distinguish Tibetan from Hanyu pinyin until [cmn] and other
> >> become available)
> > I don't see what 'cmn' has to do with it. Tibetan is in no way
> part of 'zh'.
> My mistake--I was thinking of Tongyong Pinyin which is a part of
> [zh] but [cmn] won't help there either!
> > The whole point of language tagging is distinguishing languages
> > their important variants. To do things which would obscure the
> > distinction between two indisputably distinct languages would be
> > counterproductive.
> > The various Soviet Turkic languages are also indisputably
> > but we managed to assign a single tag to cover the Jangalif
> > for all of them.
> That's the example I thought of.
> >> (Alas, since Tongyong Pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin are both for
> >> ISO 639-3 codes will not help to distinguish these two if they
> >> to be distinguished with something other than a description in a
> >> meta tag. That's the only problem I can foresee with lumping
> >> two together for now.)
> > This is a strong argument for *not* merging the two.
> The obvious tactic is zh-(Latn)-TW-pinyin vs. zh-(Latn)-CN-pinyin.
> Admittedly, zh-TW has been used to mean zh-Hant in the past, but
> is a truly appropriate use of TW for the orthography specific to
> This is problematic though as both Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin
> seem to be used in Taiwan--but it would serve to distinguish the
> two official orthographies.
> Another option I thought of:
> or [pinyntai]
> but these are totally obscure and non-transparent; however an
> option is t o use [pinyin] for all similar Romanizations used in
> the People's Republic of China and use some other name (such as
> [tongyong]?) for the other variety.
> >> Reading online I understand that Cantonese Pinyin is quite
> >> (correct me if I'm wrong) from Hanyu Pinyin --
> > Yes.
> > I agree. This should not be tagged with the wide-scope 'pinyin'
> > although I suppose it sometimes will be.
> Thanks for the reply; agreed!
> > John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages