No subject

Fri Jun 13 15:57:40 CEST 2008

sed on Mandarin than on other dialects=2C but that there is no one-to-one c=
orrespondance the way there would be with a Romanized alphabet.
(I'll look sometime myself for more references=3B not right now).
Thanks.  Best wishes=2C
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at From: John Cowan <cowan at>Subject: Re: LANGUAG=
E SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: pinyin > Gerard Meijssen scripsit: >> It is exa=
ctly when you are talking about Pinyin that there is no relation at>> all b=
etween the written text in the logograms and the text written in the>> Lati=
n script.  > Of course there's a relation: they are written forms of the sa=
me language=2C> Mandarin Chinese (subject to the qualifications I discussed=
 in my last post). -- > John Cowan cowan at

Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

.hmmessage P
FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
Hi=2C I do not know where to go on the argument as to whether written Chine=
se is Mandarin or not.&nbsp=3B All I have is the Wikipedia article and such=
 to go on (see <A href=3D"
em"></A>)=2C which makes=
 some sense to me.<BR>
Does anyone have any other references on this to suggest?&nbsp=3B Or does t=
he Wikipedia article cover everything here?<BR>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list