Registration forms for description changes
dewell at adelphia.net
Mon Jun 12 08:44:43 CEST 2006
Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:
>> Description: [ADD] Norwegian Bokmal
> Pardon me, but I think that is silly. It would be better in this case
> to actually translate the name to English: "Book Norwegian". While
> doing that translate also the name for "nn": "New Norwegian". There is
> no point in repeating the language name ("Norwegian" and "norsk") in
> the description of "nn". You can have as *alternative* names "bokmål"
> and "nynorsk" respectively.
As I understood, the goal was to provide ASCII-only variants of names
that require non-ASCII characters to be spelled correctly, not to
translate names. As others have stated, no English speaker who knows
the difference between Bokmål and Nynorsk would call them anything other
than "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk." They may understand that those words mean
roughly "book language" and "new Norwegian" respectively, but those are
not the names of the languages.
>> Description: [ADD] Provencal
> The last line: please no. At least I read that as "provenkal"...
Again, it is well understood that some of these names cannot be spelled
correctly without non-ASCII letters, or would be pronounced differently
and incorrectly if spelled in pure ASCII. The goal was to provide
pure-ASCII versions that users would be able to type from an ASCII-only
keyboard. "Provencal" does bring up some Google hits for Provençal.
>> Description: [ADD] Volapuk
> If anything, a better "ASCII-ified" version would be "Volapyk".
The Danish for Volapük does appear to be "Volapyk." Is this what users
who are searching for "Volapük" but cannot type the u-with-diaeresis
would be expected to type instead? Does this serve the purpose we are
trying to serve?
>> Description: [ADD] Slave
>> Description: [ADD] Athapascan
> 1) This language is, I gather, now called "Slavey" (plus some other
> 2) And, I gather, it is of the "Athapascan" **language family**.
> I.e., the entry for "ath" should have as its description "Athapascan
> langauge (other)"
> (though "other Athapascan language" would be even better...).
If you believe any of the names in the Registry are inaccurate or
incorrect or incomplete or misleading, we should discuss that issue
separately. I feel it is out of scope for this very specific project of
providing ASCII-only alternative descriptions.
>> Description: [ADD] Provencal, Old (to 1500)
> The last line: please no.
>> Description: [ADD] Aland Islands
> The last line: please no. Definitely no. And that territory is
> really called "Åland", not "Åland Islands". (Besides, Å is
> phonetically closer to O than to A...)
See above regarding ASCII-folding.
ISO 3166/MA calls it "Åland Islands," so that is what we used. (The ISO
3166 names are not always what "real people" would use; I don't know
anyone who says "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of" instead of
Phonetics aside, do you think people who are constrained to typing in
ASCII are more likely to type "Aland" or "Oland"?
>> Description: [ADD] Cote d'Ivoire
> The last line: please no. You could translate it to "Ivory Cost".
If it were any old ivory coast, it would be certainly be translated as
"Ivory Coast." The official name for the country in western Africa is
"Côte d'Ivoire." Both names are used in non-official usage, according
to Wikipedia, but to add alternative names to the Registry is to begin
sliding down the slippery slope: "United States of America," "United
States," "America," "U.S.," "U.S.A.," "The Great Satan," etc.
>> Description: [ADD] Reunion
See above. If your objection is to the overall premise of adding
ASCII-only versions of non-ASCII descriptions, it might be best to
simply state that.
Fullerton, California, USA
More information about the Ietf-languages