Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Wed Mar 7 20:23:39 CET 2007

Hi, Reshat, all:

Either nta1926
or baku1926 is fine with me.

I think people want your decision on this Reshat!

(I wrote a few more things below, in responses to your text, but nothing of 
import that you need to spend two hours on.  Sorry you are having to take so 
>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 
> > Also, the image
> > 
> > shows various 1920s and 21st-century Latin alphabets for Turkic 
> > 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
Thanks very much for this information!  I knew that that was the name of the 
Turkish alphabet too.

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

Yes, this makes sense.
>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?).
Either nta1926
or baku1926 is fine with me.

I think people want your decision on this Reshat

(I also said this at the top.)
>Anyway, i've spent 2 hours on this email, and it feels like 2m forward
>190cm back.

Thanks for your trouble.
>Thanks all.

>- --

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list