[Ietf-languages] Northern Thai Variants

Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813CF131196 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:09:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ntlworld.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DNdokurmFGL8 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-2.server.virginmedia.net (know-smtprelay-omc-2.server.virginmedia.net [80.0.253.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B69AA130DBE for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from JRWUBU2 ([82.4.11.47]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id hWKigk3ERVQj4hWKigb1Xl; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:09:00 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [82.4.11.47]
X-Authenticated-User:
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.3 cv=fJUXI6Se c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=yrOAJgItaIMndimPI+pDLQ==:117 a=yrOAJgItaIMndimPI+pDLQ==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=21iPEJdEcZxVZfBXEaMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ntlworld.com; s=meg.feb2017; t=1547111340; bh=q3Ajr8SPm2xRRTO2WWNEyg16uD/Y/3t0IGEAXMwFWRU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=v8ceGk+qpGx9c9sngYgktxNcaQVVWIKN6JuB318a+nkb7C6FyK/tqg5chCmZrfeKQ Ut2NbtGHj0FMdkPQ9tw0Fd3f9EH0MPS9aOVum/i2wTUJZD/i7oGiIL5A0FQsCVK9MY eB/4eNl1tj+1Z47OTv4x9Irycq7RHLFLXooJTmd4y4NfuRnMSUArD+x+NQz2faaqLf ONaAhO5p4fbftyTq+OAvDsRzqOXbtJs0uH6BXFrWGs00//5egxO1PFmWUCSMijsjn3 hKYC6jLtgs6NNyZxOL/nacOrKdQCNX+u2Cy1YG3usJX3CFCHOALY1clvFzU8Vzgu/z 51F5jfDNBO/1w==
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:08:59 +0000
From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
To: ietf-languages@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190110090859.23aec72a@JRWUBU2>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAHtb58mtSoAJh9wIxIvXBmxF3Q/dXsOWHVl1p6KwF0Ha/+qFmeUhAEwPjlLqRMgy8G01/gHimwXwjugoCu69m/WAns/j24kF+1C0iUnEm6ntGdlHY27 WZqJiaIulETu1M56Gw+bI9VBeGHj3dpbUR7NiwIurooCSobhAOCltSGY
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/YcdMJY1diuftMlxLWuutrb9sFDQ>
Subject: [Ietf-languages] Northern Thai Variants
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:09:05 -0000

I have been looking at localisation for northern Thai (language code
nod) and it seems to me that, simplifying, for any speech variety there
are three basic varieties of writing system:

1) Writing in the Tai Tham script (subtag Lana)
2) Writing in the Thai script (subtag Thai) with consonants having
the same phonetic values as the corresponding Tai Tham consonants.
3) Writing in the Thai script with stop consonants having
the same phonetic values as in Standard Thai.

My idea for approaching this is to use the labels:

nod-Lana
nod-Thai-etymo
nod-Thai-phonetic

However, there are several issues with this approach.

The first is whether nod-etymo and and nod-phonetic would then be
allowed as identifiers of Northern Thai Thai-script writing systems.
nod-Lana-etymo would not make sense, and I'm not sure how to word the
subtag record to exclude, or at least discourage, it.

The second is the possibility that Scheme 2, but not Scheme 3, should
be treated as a transform of Scheme 1, and therefore scheme 2 should
be nod-Lana-t-Thai, which would remove the need for variants at this
level.  My most cogent objection is that the transformation depends on
phonetic and etymological information - ambiguities in some
orthographies for Scheme 1 are removed in Scheme 2, and word-final
<SIGN OA BELOW, RA> is converted according to etymology, (generally)
with <O ANG, RO RUEA> in words of Pali/Sanskrit origin and <O ANG, NO
NU> in native words.

Users of Northern Thai learn Standard Thai in school, and will
generally be more fluent in writing Standard Thai than in writing
Northen Thai.

Can I please have advice.

Richard.