randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Wed Sep 24 19:36:45 CEST 2008
> From: "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Pinyin
> > Now, a question. Consider bo-Latn-TW-pinyin. Would that be Tibetan
> > as used in Tiawan in an orthography that looks something like Hanyu Pinyin,
> > or Tibetan in an orthography that looks something like Tongyong pinyin?
> Who cares? It is complete bollocks in either case, as much so as nv-DK or tlh-AQ.
Does anyone know which (if any) Tibetan Romanizations are in use in
Taiwan (e.g., in teaching) and whether they differ in any material way
from the ones already discussed here?
I'm also trying to understand the generative properties of the proposal.
Does the bit of information that something is based on Tongyong,
rather than Hanyu Pinyin, come (generatlively) from the -TW-pinyin
part of the tag or does it come (non-generatively) from the list
More information about the Ietf-languages