Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)" tatar.iqtelif.i18n at
Tue Dec 19 06:36:26 CET 2006

Hash: SHA1

Doug Ewell yazmış:
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>> O.k. thanks, I do not know enough about these languages, my apologies.
>> If the languages were normally written in Latin-based script then the
>> script tag would be redundant;
>> if they were normally written in Cyrillic script, then it would be
>> necessary;
>> also, if they can be written in either script, then the script tag
>> would be necessary;
>> also if they are  were written in Arabic or any other script at least
>> a good bit of the time (though not necessarily the majority of the
>> time), the script tag would be necessary.
> This is all correct as far as it goes, but Reşat's requests had nothing
> to do with script subtags.  He was requesting variant subtags for
> specific *orthographies* of Tatar et al. that are primarily written with
> Latin letters, with a few Cyrillic letters thrown in (but the overall
> script is still Latin).  There are several ways to write Tatar in Latin
> script, and Reşat's proposed subtag "ussrlatn" would have identified a
> specific one.
First an off-topic comment: it is indeed not easy to come up with a good
generic variant for latinization that dozens of languages underwent in
late 1920s, and through-out 1930s. But i can't help but notice the
irony, that decisions on these actual mass latinizations were probably
taken more quickly than our variant deliberations. It is however more of
a negative for those decisions than these deliberations.
In principal, i agree that latn is redundant in the variant, but in
practical terms a lot of frameworks only support a single variant as of
now, for -Latn-variant is not alway practical. However, i do not expect
this variant to be heavily used for i18n. It's more likely to come up in
 individual sources on the web, as sources from those times could get
published in scanned or typed form.
As far as ussr in variant name, the only meaning i was attaching to it
is to reflect a time frame: after all, for almost all applicable
languages there was only 1 significant Latn alphabet during ussr history.

If ussrlatn, or any of the other generic suggestions in my original
request don't appear to be appealing, and there are no other suggestions
that try to reflect the generic nature of mass latinization of multiple
languages (Turkic and non-Turkic), I think janalif would do for
starters. If further such requests come over time, or there are fresher
ideas for variant name later on, it could always be deprecated, and
If that's the consensus, please consider whether janalif as a variant
name could be applied to all languages in the original request, or only
to Tatar. As i've mentioned before, my interest stems from Tatar, but i
always make an effort to re-use every byte. ;)


- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at:
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list