Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"
tatar.iqtelif.i18n at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 05:14:09 CET 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Reshat Sabiq (Reşat) yazmış:
> Michael Everson yazm1_:
>> 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.
>> Is it the same as the pan-Turkic alphabet? Panturk would do if it is.
> I don't know what alphabet this line refers to.
> The thing about janalif is that it is a Qazan Tatar word. And Qazan
> Tatar's state is quite dire these days, and so is it's alphabet. I think
> nta is a better choice. If we'd like to disambiguate New, how about nta1926?
> I'm not against janalif, but it might not match the scope. We can try
> it, if you folks insist, and if there are objections in the future,
> deprecate it, and assign another variant name.
> So, i guess we are down to:
> 1. nta
> 2. janalif
This actually has a drawback i mentioned before. There is a reference to
çanalip in Qazaq. I don't know if it was used historically or if it's
just somebody's transliteration of janalif into Qazaq that was made in
recent years, but nonetheless it's there. So there'd be a question,
should it be janalif or canalip? You could then start thinking in terms
of, 2nd version of NTA applied to Uzbek would spell Tatar Jaŋa Әlifba as
Jaŋi Alifbe (as far as i know), which when abbreviated would again
produce jaŋalif. It doesn't appear to have been used in Uzbek, but could
perhaps be used to say janalif fits more speakers than canalip. This
would be rather arbitrary, however.
> 3. janalif for tt (and maybe ba), nta for others
Would probably need canalip for Qazaq.
> 4. nta-janalif for tt and maybe ba, nta
Would probably need nta-canalip for Qazaq.
> 5. nta1926
> Or if there are better ideas, please speak up.
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v220.127.116.11 (Cygwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Ietf-languages