pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed
mark at macchiato.com
Wed Sep 17 07:40:40 CEST 2008
I agree. What I have requested is a subtag for distinguishing a particular
set of orthographic conventions for romanization of Mandarin Chinese, not
Tibetan. If John wants a subtag that includes (for whatever reasons you
have) both romanizations of Chinese and Tibetan, that's fine. But that's not
what I applied for, nor what my company needs.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Phillips, Addison <addison at amazon.com>wrote:
> 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
> Addison Phillips
> 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
> > alternate
> > >>> Taiwanese romanization) of Mandarin from the Hanyu Pinyin
> > romanization
> > >>> of Mandarin?
> > >>
> > >> About as different as Pinyin and Wade-Gile.
> > > Quantitatively, no. Of the 412 Modern Standard Mandarin
> > syllables
> > > (disregarding tone), Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin differ in
> > the
> > > 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
> > separating
> > > the alveolopalatals by writing different initials and of eliding
> > central
> > > 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
> > Tibetan
> > > will allow it to be.
> > That was my understanding
> > >> I see no problem with having to use a meta-content description
> > tag
> > >> to distinguish Tibetan from Hanyu pinyin until [cmn] and other
> > codes
> > >> 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
> > and
> > > 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
> > distinct,
> > > but we managed to assign a single tag to cover the Jangalif
> > orthography
> > > for all of them.
> > That's the example I thought of.
> > >> (Alas, since Tongyong Pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin are both for
> > Mandarin,
> > >> ISO 639-3 codes will not help to distinguish these two if they
> > need
> > >> to be distinguished with something other than a description in a
> > >> meta tag. That's the only problem I can foresee with lumping
> > the
> > >> 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
> > this
> > is a truly appropriate use of TW for the orthography specific to
> > Taiwan.
> > 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:
> > [pinynprc]
> > [pinyntwn]
> > 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
> > distant
> > >> (correct me if I'm wrong) from Hanyu Pinyin --
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > > I agree. This should not be tagged with the wide-scope 'pinyin'
> > subtag,
> > > 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
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages