pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed
everson at evertype.com
Wed Sep 17 10:26:51 CEST 2008
On 17 Sep 2008, at 06:40, Mark Davis wrote:
> 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.
Maybe, but the subtag you requested can apply to more than one
language. That is the point. You may need zh-cmn-Latn-pinyin, but the
final subtag there can be correctly applied to bo-Latn-pinyin and zh-
Latn-TW-pinyin. This is, as I have said, analogous to the use we make
of the "fonupa" subtag and as John has said, analogous to the
"baku1926" subtag we had approved for Jangalif and other related
orthographies. Pinyin (i.e. with Hanyu Pinyin-like conventions for the
meaning of "x" and "q") is just the same.
I do not agree to restrict the "pinyin" subtag to Hanyu Pinyin on
linguistic grounds. The three languages mentioned above use Pinyin
conventions in certain romanizations (Tibetan for instance also uses
I am happy to agree to add the "pinyin" subtag so long as it can be
used for Tibetan and Tongyong (with appropriate prefixes). I don't
agree to add it as a subtag that is restricted to Hanyu Pinyin alone,
because I believe that this linguistically incorrect.
I think this solution works, and I would like to move forward with it.
I do want to figure out the best way to deal with the script subtags
however, as I have not seen complete consensus on that. I have to go
out to breakfast now; I will be on a train from London to Penzance
later this afternoon and will write up something which I will send as
soon as I get internet again.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages