Philip Newton philip.newton at
Fri Oct 1 21:43:31 CEST 2010

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:06, Michael Everson <everson at> wrote:
>> "vowels" is, well, not so nice. Arabic texts are said to be vocalized when
>> they use diacritics and Hebrew pointed. There is also the question of how
>> this relates to Thaana and Tengwar.
> The exact term doesn't matter, if you prefer "vocalizd" or "pointed".

I thought of "pointed", too, though I thought that applied also to Arabic.

I'm not sure whether this variant is applicable to Thaana; as far as I
know, it's obligatorily vowelled (vocalised? pointed?), making it more
of an abugida than an abjad.

Whatever the subtag ends up called, it seems to me like a reasonable
thing to want to (optionally) tag.

>> "respell" is very much not so nice. It is so vague as to be meaningless.
>> All it means is "non-standard spelling" as far as I can see.

I thought that "respelling" was a technical term for the kind of thing
you tend to see in dictionaries: representing spelling using the
orthographic conventions of the language.

So in that sense, it's not like the spelling that's used in running
text, but it is standardised: a dictionary would not use "ay" for the
FACE vowel in some words but "ai" or "ae" in others - it would
standardise on one particular spelling (such as "ay" or "ā").

> The intent is that where that is necessary, that this be the "root" of
> all such terms. That allows content to be tagged where the precise
> mechanism is not known or not relevant.

Or where it may even be ad-hoc, as when people represent the
pronunciation of their own names by respelling them: they typically
don't resort to a standardised scheme they learned from a dictionary,
or the IPA, or something like that, but write something like

Philip Newton <philip.newton at>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list