Subtag registration: Russian transliteration of Chinese

Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Wed Oct 14 15:31:05 CEST 2015

Doug asked for what the reasoning is for the logic of having
<target>-t-<source> for transforms, and I explained it. That syntax is not
going to change, so there is no point in discussing it further.

And nobody is claiming that "Eto obrezets prigovor" is English.


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Michael Everson <everson at>

> On 13 Oct 2015, at 14:21, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at> wrote:
> >
> > > “Eto obrezets prigovor” is in no way English.
> >
> > I agree. It's a bit of a gray area, because "Gorbachev" is definitely an
> English word,
> No, it isn’t, any more than “Davis” is a Chinese or Russian word, though
> it might be transliterated into CJK or Cyrillic.
> Personal and place-names are not quite the same things as other words in
> languages.
> > though originally Russian, just as "Athens" is an English word, though
> originally Greek.
> I think this is also mistaken. Orthography is not the same thing in this
> case. Now, Athens and Rome and (the old-fashioned) Tiflis are foreign names
> which got naturalized into English (Ἀθῆναι, Roma, and თბილისი), but that is
> not the same thing as transliteration either. Nowadays we don’t use
> “Tiflis” any more; we transliterate “Tbilisi”.
> > We choose to use the direction we did because the primary use case for
> transformations is for place names and person names, and because it also
> works better for script transforms: und-Cyrl-t-und-Latn is marking text
> that is *in* Cyrillic, though originally from English.
> Declaring something “und” is not the same thing as declaring “Eto obrezets
> prigovor” to be English per se.
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list