Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
cowan at ccil.org
Wed Feb 21 05:36:33 CET 2007
"Reshat Sabiq (Re??at)" scripsit:
> 1. nta
We simply cannot use "nta". It is too short.
> 2. janalif
It sounds like this is too specific.
> 5. nta1926
This is possible; however "new" is problematic for something 70 years old.
Also, the image
shows various 1920s and 21st-century Latin alphabets for Turkic languages.
Phrases that translate to "new (Tatar) alphabet" are used for both time
periods, though the actual alphabets are not the same. This is another
reason not to use "new" in the name. "panturk" is as you say not good
because "Pan-Turkic" has strong political implications.
However, the Azeri name for the 1929-39 alphabet means "uniform Turkic
alphabet", which looks promising because that name is not being used
today. How about "uniturk"?
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver
spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be
rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to
act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley
More information about the Ietf-languages