Re: [Ietf-languages] From Arabic to Latin

[Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, I see you mention the sub-tag registry for some of these
transformations/transliterations.  I’ll have a closer look.  It seems that
it is possible to define some directly as IANA sub tags and others in the
CLDR registry list.  I hadn’t noticed that before.

All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone


On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:38 PM Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was waiting for Mark or someone else more closely connected with CLDR to
> respond, but here goes. Corrections and amplifications are of course
> welcome.
>
> Hugh Paterson III wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that RFC6[4]97 does not distinguish between
> > "transliteration, transcription, and translation".
>
> It does not, at least in part because the boundaries between these
> concepts can be hard to define. I recall Addison Phillips using the term
> “transmogrification” to observe this.
>
> > However, if I wanted to specify the type of transliteration method
> > used I would need to use [ar-t-ar-Latn].
>
> The part after the -t- singleton is the language (etc.) being transformed
> FROM. So it would be "ar-Latn-t-ar".
>
> You could make it "ar-Latn-t-ar-Arab" instead, to call extra attention to
> the change in script from Arabic to Latin. Balancing this against the
> normal guidelines about honoring Suppress-Script, keeping tags short, etc.
> is left as an exercise.
>
> > But this tag seems to be missing something. How would I construct a
> > valid transliteration tag using the CLDR indication for the Buckwalter
> > method?
>
> That would be "ar-Latn-t-ar-m0-buckwalt". I trust you have read enough of
> RFC 6497 and the CLDR file "transform.xml" to be able to find the subtag
> 'buckwalt' and be able to construct this tag.
>
> > Questions:
> > 1. How would I construct a valid transliteration tag from Arabic in
> > Arabic script  to Arabic in Latin Script using the CLDR indication for
> > the Buckwalter method?
>
> As above.
>
> > 2. When would it be appropriate to use [ar-t-ar-Latn]
>
> recte: "ar-Latn-t-ar"
>
> > instead of just [ar-Latn]? -- in my case I want to specify which
> > transliteration system was used.
>
> If all you need to say is “Arabic language, Latin script” then you are
> probably fine with just "ar-Latn" — the predominant use of the Arabic
> script for that language means that Latin-script content pretty much had to
> have been transliterated. The same would go for, say, "en-Arab".
>
> If you need to specify a transliteration method, and that method is not
> one of the few which has its own variant subtag (e.g. 'hepburn'), then you
> must use the full syntax with the -t- extension.
>
> > 3. What programmatic ways are there to determine if the -t- tag
>
> “subtag” or “singleton”
>
> > is used to mean translation instead of just transliteration? Does
> > just checking for the same language tag on both sides of the -t- work
> > for all use cases? (e.g., sameLangage-t-sameLangage = transliteration
> > : sameLangage-t-differentLanguage = translation)
>
> You would have to devise your own approach. The one you suggested might
> work. Extension T is not designed to support these distinctions, RFC 6497
> does not discuss them, and frankly I doubt there are many processes which
> depend on them.
>
> > 4. I am dealing with several different systems of transliteration
> > within bibliographic data (in library and archival contexts). For
> > example, Wikipedia outlines over 20 systems of transliterating Arabic
> > script to Latin script. Is there a way to designate the specific
> > transliteration method used? For example, I see Buckwalter Arabic
> > transliteration system mentioned in CLDR [5] but I don't see the
> > Library of Congress' transliteration table [6] or for that matter the
> > BGN/PCGN 1956 System [7].
>
> A quick scan of transform.xml will reveal 'alaloc' for the former (not to
> be confused with the 'alaloc' variant subtag) and 'bgn' for the latter.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>