LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4) - Pinyin
everson at evertype.com
Mon Sep 29 11:14:09 CEST 2008
On 29 Sep 2008, at 09:46, Mark Davis wrote:
> People from the 'broad pinyin' camp are claiming that there are a
> set of romanizations that follow the same principles, and that
> thereby should have the broad term 'pinyin'. No evidence or pointers
> to documentation of those principles have yet followed, so there is
> as yet no reason to think that that would be a good approach.
I documented the "salient features of Pinyin" this morning.
> So, consistent with that, we could define the subtag 'pinyin' as
> being one of a set of romanizations defined by the Chinese
> government, and have not only
> but also, according to whatever standards the Chinese government
Yes, but so far we only have references for zh- and bo- for these, so
only those prefixes have been added to my revised proposal.
> Taking that path, it would probably be best not to have specify
> language prefixes in the registration form, but rather in the
> Description note that 'pinyin' should be combined with a language
> subtag and 'Latn' to indicate a romanization for that language
> according to Chinese government standards, since they could be
> extended over time (we would not want a precedent that would end up
> having 50+ different Prefixs for bgn, or ungegn, or ...).
I don't see the connection between UNGEGN (or the Académie Française)
and Pinyin. Pinyin does not refer to the Chinese government as an
institution, but to a set of linguistic principles making up the
alphabet. I would not see it problematic to (eventually) add mn-Latn
or ug-Latn prefixes to the Pinyin registration, because all of those
are applications of the pinyin alphabet to some languages.
The UNGEGN material is completely different; the romanizations are
unrelated, based on completely different standards, whether ad-hoc or
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages