[Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 44, Issue 15

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Fri Oct 3 16:18:24 CEST 2008

Lang Gérard scripsit:

> 0-Let me suggest that we should adopt a precise, uniform and recognized
> terminology when discussing about transformations between languages
> and/or scripts.

As far as I can tell, we are currently using the terms "transcription",
"transliteration", "romanization", "language" (except that we do not
require a language community to be large), and "script" in the same senses
as UNGEGN.  We have not used the broader terms "transformation" (meaning
translation, transcription, or transliteration) and "conversion" (meaning
transcription or transliteration), but they are reasonable additions to
the toolkit.  The term "translation" is not relevant to our work.

We also use a different taxonomy of scripts, dividing them into
alphabets, abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, and logosyllabaries: see
http://www.unicode.org/glossary for terse definitions, or Section 6.1
of the Unicode Standard for detailed explanations (available online at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch06.pdf .

John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan at ccil.org
'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale.  --Greg Baker

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list