Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
everson at evertype.com
Mon Nov 13 15:34:54 CET 2006
At 06:00 -0800 2006-11-13, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>The request talks about about population numbers being "a tad
>>confusing" and the proposer's "vague remembrances". And it is a
>>request for a "variant of a Latin-based alphabet". Is this an
>>orthography? Or an alphabet?
>I believe it's an alphabet that imposes a particular orthography, if
>that makes any sense. The set of available letters helps to
>determine the possible spellings.
But a given set of characters may yield many orthographies.
>>The source cited is a Wikipedia article, which includes the
>>following reference: IQTElif is further justified here:
>>http://www.ultranet.tv/oyrenmelik/pdf/TatarAlphabet.pdf -- on a
>>"Learn Turkish-Tatar-English Easily" site. "Justified"? [...] As
>>far as I can see, this "alphabet" is just samizdat.
>Whether IQTElif is illegal is irrelevant to whether it exists.
But anyone can create an orthography... the Wikipedia and ultranet
evidence is not, I believe sufficient to permit this to be approved.
>As for Janalif, it may have been created for political purposes, but
>its existence (or not) is an independent fact.
>>This is even more rambling, going on about the proposer's train of
>>thought. What is it about? Is it pan-Turkic? Is it Tatar-specific?
>>Where are any real references? What is the relation of this to, for
>>instance, Nughajbik, mirxan, Qorban, & Fajzullin's 1938
>>Rusca-tatarca syzlek (see Kazan Tatar at
>>http://www.evertype.com/alphabets/)? What about the numerous
>>alphabets for Turkic languages in Allworth's Nationalities of the
>Perhaps Reshat can be persuaded to answer these specific questions.
I need clarification.
>>I think I have to reject both of these requests. They are
>>underspecified. I believe I had already rejected the first on 22
>>October, though that wasn't very final, I admit.
>You wrote: "until two of the three important and) relevant books in
>my OWN library are mentioned in a bibliography regarding this, I am
>disinclined to consider approval." That's not final enough. "I
>reject this request on the grounds of XYZ" would have been.
So far, I am tending to reject both of these because of lack of
compelling evidence and clarity. I invite further discussion now,
>>They're entirely unrelated to that. I know there are orthographies
>>for Tatar. I just don't know what is being requested here, and
>>there are no adequate references.
>Two particular orthographies for Tatar, it seems to me.
The first is based on a Wikipedia article and somebody's web site. Is
that good enough?
The second is more tempting, but what is its relation to the 1938
dictionary I mention above? (That's a very big dictionary.)
>>Sorry, but I don't believe we are approving these as they stand.
>>Please discuss if you feel otherwise. I certainly did not detect
>>consensus about these on the list.
>You're the Reviewer; you can use list consensus as a guide if you
>choose, but are not bound by it.
Well, there has not been much discussion.
>My main point is that if you wish to reject them, you have to reject
>them; ignoring them and expecting them to go away on their own is
>not a valid option.
I was not doing that, Doug. We're all busy, I was in Cornwall, then I
had a cold.... Thank you for the reminder.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages