pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed
Michael Everson
everson at evertype.com
Thu Sep 18 00:43:02 CEST 2008
Hi everyone. It's 23:40. I was on a very nice train from 14:00 to
19:30 from London to Penzance today. Went to a pub with wifi and
uploaded what I'd written on the train to you. Went for a curry. Came
back to find 35 new messages!
On 17 Sep 2008, at 23:12, Peter Constable wrote:
> Mark's point is that he wants a subtag specifically for Hanyu Pinyin
> -- that is, something specific to Mandarin.
Subset of what I have proposed. Meets his needs. Covers other things
as well.
> Your point is that the subtag "pinyin" has a mnemonic value that can
> be related to languages other than Mandarin. That's a different and
> independent point.
No, it's not. My point is that "pinyin" is analogous to "fonupa" in
that it is a set of coherent orthographic conventions which is
applicable to a number of languages in China. These pinyin
orthographies part of a family in the same way that pre-IPA Uralicist
transcriptions are. Appropriate use of prefixes can allow us to
describe these correctly, including Mark's immediate needs.
> There are two issues that have been on the table:
>
> 1. Should the semantic scope of the subtag be specific to an
> orthography for Mandarin only, or should it encompass other (however-
> related) orthographies?
I'm quite sure that it should be, because this is a family of related
orthographies, one of which (the Hanyu one) is particularly well-known.
> 2. Should the form of the subtag be "pinyin" or something else?
Do let's have it be "pinyin" and let the registration define it
appropriately.
> I get the argument regarding the mnemonic value of "pinyin", but I'm
> not convinced it's the last word. A subtag "af" may hold certain
> mnemonic value for people interested in Afar, but that doesn't mean
> that it would be correct for people to use "af" for Afar content,
> AND it also doesn't mean that we should have the semantic scope of
> "af" be broad enough to encompass both Afar and Afrikaans. At some
> point, we do expect users of the registry to read the documentation
> in the registry and apply it appropriately.
I don't find this analogy to be applicable.
>> You may need zh-cmn-Latn-pinyin, but the final subtag there can be
>> correctly applied to bo-Latn-pinyin and zh-Latn-TW-pinyin.
>
> Only if we define it that way. We can choose to register "pinyin" to
> mean something more specific, as Mark requested.
I'm trying to do the right thing here, which is to give Mark a tag and
be able to meet other pretty reasonable requirements as well.
>> I do not agree to restrict the "pinyin" subtag to Hanyu Pinyin on
>> linguistic grounds. The three languages mentioned above use Pinyin
>> conventions in certain romanizations...
>>
>> I am happy to agree to add the "pinyin" subtag so long as it can be
>> used for Tibetan and Tongyong...
>
> Perhaps you should be preparing an alternate request form in which
> you point to documentation defining Pinyin conventions that cover
> all three languages.
That's probably a good idea, but I am not likely to be able to do so
before I get back home to Westport Monday. I think links to the
relevant documentation has been posted somewhere to this list in the
last while. Please see my thread "Pinyin" about the prefixes and -Latn-.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080917/04832993/attachment.htm
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list