Tagging transliterations from a specific script

Avram Lyon ajlyon at ucla.edu
Fri Mar 18 20:05:43 CET 2011

[resending after being caught by the reply-sender default here, once again!]

2011/3/18 Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>:
> after Peter Constable wrote:
>> If ALA-LC defines multiple, distinct conventions, then it does not make
>> sense to have one ambiguous tag to refer to those distinct conventions: it
>> simply sets us up to face the very problem we are now dealing with.
> But I thought he said later that the differences turned out not to be due to
> the ALA-LC conventions after all, but to differences in the orthographies
> used in the original source texts.
> Maybe I'd better wait for Avram to clarify before trying to paraphrase him
> further.

Yes. ALA-LC doesn't cover this in any great detail-- but the problem
is a side-effect of the changing orthographies of Tatar.

I'm confident that the ALA-LC romanizations don't leave us with
distinct conventions that can't be partitioned by language variant
subtags that could be justified on their own merit. We're really
dealing with a change in Tatar orthography, and that change is more
than a script change. I will try to draft yanaimla and iskeimla
requests ASAP-- in the meantime I'm sorry to have opened what has
turned out to be a real can of worms, since the motivating situation
can be resolved without any special treatment of transliteration.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list