Re: Pinyin

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 24 September 2008 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B8C39E477 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M79ocTb5K69d for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:11:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.8
Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [208.77.188.37]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0134A39E46F for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:11:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8OHBEZZ021254 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:11:34 -0700
Received: from [64.105.34.116] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1KiXtR-00025d-M7 for ietf-languages@iana.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:11:13 -0400
Message-ID: <006e01c91e68$9e4abce0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: ietf-languages@iana.org
References: <30b660a20808251532w617adb80w6408b78394afde60@mail.gmail.com><E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C18B96BA8FE@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com><30b660a20808251652le711e57vf74b07317c4d29ba@mail.gmail.com> <83C5E5CB-FE27-47BA-A98F-F5003F586A64@evertype.com>
Subject: Re: Pinyin
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:11:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88858bc2ddbf51b90e422c1143af8d01b1cb0780852c4e0d3dc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.34.116
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/8324/Wed Sep 24 03:55:43 2008 on pechora2.lax.icann.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (pechora2.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.37]); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:11:07 -0000

Hi -

> From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
> To: "ietflang IETF Languages Discussion" <ietf-languages@iana.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:58 AM
> Subject: Pinyin
...
> zh-TW-pinyin
> zh-Latn-TW-pinyin
> This is Tongyong Pinyin orthography, also to be defined as Mandarin
> Chinese language.

As long as zh-TW usage or idioms don't diverge from PRC (resulting
in a need to distinguish the language variety per se in addition to
the orthography) this would work, though I really don't like it.  If we go
this route, I'd like the registration form to give the reference materials
for Tongyong pinyin and to spell out that it's that, rather than Hanyu
Pinyin, that's intended with these two prefixes.  But I'd prefer not
combining one Tibetan and two different Mandarin orthographies
(along with an unspecified number of orthogrphies of other languages?)
into a single language variant.
 
> zh-cmn-TW-pinyin
> zh-cmn-Latn-TW-pinyin
> cmn-TW-pinyin
> cmn-Latn-TW-pinyin
> All of these can only mean Mandarin Chinese in Tongyong Pinyin
> romanization; they are not yet permitted but will be (one supposes).
> For the present, this set doesn't matter to us.

I have the same concern about potential divergence in zh-TW usage
from PRC usage with these.

> bo-pinyin
> bo-Latn-pinyin
> Both of these mean Tibetan language in Tibetan Pinyin romanization (as
> opposed to Wiley for instance).

The registration form should specify references for this orthography as well.

> Peter says he would like the recommended prefix to contain -Latn-.
> Mark said he could live with or without it but thought that "with"
> should be recommended. Should we assist users of this subtag by having
> some redundancy in the registration? At this stage I think that "best
> practice" (with -Latn-) being the only one specified might be
> insufficient.

I'd prefer listing *only* the -Latn- prefixes.

Now, a question.  Consider bo-Latn-TW-pinyin.  Would that be  Tibetan
as used in Tiawan in an orthography that looks something like Hanyu Pinyin,
or Tibetan in an orthography that looks something like Tongyong pinyin?

Randy