Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)" tatar.iqtelif.i18n at
Wed Mar 7 07:06:32 CET 2007

Hash: SHA1

John Cowan yazmış:
> "Reshat Sabiq (Re??at)" scripsit:
>> 1. nta
> We simply cannot use "nta".  It is too short.
I see: 5-to-8 requirement.
>> 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 image actually has some inaccuracies. When people use yañalif to
refer to one of the currently used variants, usually they add a number
to it: yañalif-2 (still has funny characters), yañalif-3 (no funny
characters), etc. And there is no official abbreviation this time
around; not sure if janalif took place in legal documents in the past.
> 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"?
I tend to trust more another source that used the phrase Birlәşdirilmiş
Jeni (1930larda) Türk Әlifbasь, instead of Birlәşik ... Also see a
Turkish reference to it (replace shwa w/ 'e' to find):
But anyway, my point is that it Unified appears to be more accurate than

uniturk is a fresh idea for a variant, competing w/ nta1926. The problem
w/ such a variant name is that it kind of overlaps w/ a more recent
unified alphabet proposal that came out of an Istanbul symposium at
Marmara University in 1991.

For now, i'm just gonna list the official names of the 2 here:
1. 1926:
English sources:	Unified New Turkic Alphabet
Turkish sources:	Birleştirilmiş Yeni Türk Elifbası
2. 1991:
Turkish sources:	Ortak Türk Alfabesi
English sources:	Common Turk(ic) Alphabet

And there is no telling that there won't be another symposium, and
another such alphabet. So uniturk is ambiguous.

It appears there needs to:
a. be a reference to a year, a city, or both, as in:
nta1926, baku1926
vs. possible
b. be used an abbreviation of the actual name adopted (but in what
language, and how to make it descriptive?).

Anyway, i've spent 2 hours on this email, and it feels like 2m forward
190cm back.

Thanks all.

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at:
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list