ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Thu Jun 8 08:32:10 CEST 2006
Richard Ishida <ishida at w3 dot org> wrote:
> Would it make sense to have two Description entries, reflecting both
> the spellings used in the other standards (but perhaps with the smart
> apostrophe first)?
>
> eg.
>
> Type: language
> Subtag: nqo
> Description: N’Ko
> Description: N'Ko
> Suppress-Script: Nkoo
> Added: 2006-xx-xx
>
> There are precedents for multiple descriptions already, eg.
>
> Type: language
> Subtag: cu
> Description: Church Slavic
> Description: Old Slavonic
> Description: Church Slavonic
> Description: Old Bulgarian
> Description: Old Church Slavonic
> Added: 2005-10-16
The concept of multiple Description fields was intended to reflect
situations where two or more genuinely different names are used to
identify the same language. This does not mean providing translations
of a language name into multiple languages (German, Deutsch, allemand,
tedesco, etc.), but providing alternative names -- generally in their
English form -- that are likely to translate to alternative names in
other languages as well.
For example, providing "Spanish" and "Castilian" as alternatives, as ISO
639-2 does, seemed appropriate since speakers of that language may refer
to their own language as either "español" or "castellano" (usually
depending on where they live). The Church Slavic example you gave also
seems reasonable, since all five names differ from the others in some
substantive way.
Choosing between a plain ASCII apostrophe and a more typographically
accurate, curly apostrophe does not seem to me to constitute
"alternative names" in the same sense.
When building the initial registry -- and there was plenty of
opportunity for input on this -- the LTRU Working Group decided to use
the exact spellings, including apostrophes and other non-letters,
employed in the various ISO and UN standards from which subtags were
derived. We even went so far as to use the "acute accent" character,
U+00B4, in the name "Gwich´in" because that is what ISO 639 used. The
"smart" apostrophe was used for the script N'Ko because it appeared in
ISO 15924. Personally I think it is unfortunate that this uncoordinated
variety of apostrophes appears in the registry, but after all, the
spelling in the Description field is not normative and can be changed.
The decision is up to the list and the Reviewer, but personally I would
argue against adding multiple Descriptions that differ only in a minor
typographical detail like this.
--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list