Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
CE Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 5 21:56:52 CET 2007
>
>At 16:04 -0800 2007-02-03, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>>2. Do NOT call this new subtag "nta". (Variant subtags added under RFC
>>4646 are canonically lowercase, though matching algorithms must be
>>case-insensitive.) The implied word "new" might unnecessarily reinforce
>>the notion of this 1930s orthography as something "new," particularly in
>>today's context where some former Soviet minority languages are again
>>adopting (different) Latin orthographies. Instead, call it by its Tatar
>>name "janalif" unless this would be unacceptable to non-Tatar speakers.
janalif would be best I think too because it is from the region
unless of course as you say it bothers non-Tatat speakers to have the subtag
called janalif.
I think there are 3 variants of this name:
janalif, jangalif, yanalif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%C5%8Balif
Let Reshat correct me if this information is not correct; it is from
Wikipedia!
Is the alphabet actually the Uniform Turkic Alphabet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Turkic_Alphabet
Would some variant of the above name do?
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>
>Is it the same as the pan-Turkic alphabet? Panturk would do if it is.
This might be o.k.
>--
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>_______________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the
Academy Awards®
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list