Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

Doug Ewell dewell at
Tue Dec 12 08:32:59 CET 2006

Reshat Sabiq (Reşat) <tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com> 

> As far ussrlatn vs. janalif, i would appreciate a broader 
> consideration, as the latinization wasn't undertaken for Tatar 
> language specifically, but involved all other Turkic (or in that 
> time's speak Turkic-Tatar languages), as well as many non-Turkic ones. 
> I haven't submitted one for another language, but please consider what 
> would you use if someone asked for a variant for Latin alphabet of 
> that time for Qazaq, Uzbek, etc. Janalif stuck for Tatar, but i've not 
> seen any such cute abbreviations for other languages, yet the context 
> of the alphabets across all these languages (especially Turkic ones), 
> is the same.

If this proposal were to be accepted, the actual subtag that would be 
assigned would be a relatively minor point.  It is just a string of 
letters; the important thing is having a subtag at all to identify this 

Assigning the string "janalif" would not, in and of itself, prevent the 
use of this subtag with languages other than Tatar, if such usage was 
justified (i.e. the Kazakh, Uzbek, etc. orthography was the same or 
almost the same as that used for Tatar).

I personally disliked "ussrlatn" because I thought "ussr" was political 
and "latn" was redundant.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list