Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for subtag kmpre20c

[Élie Roux <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, found it in the archives:

> “Predates the 20th century” should not have a hyphen.

Just to be clear, the full comment has a line break, on one line it
would have been

"Khmer spelled according to a usage that predates 20th-century spelling reforms"

in that case the hyphen is correct, right?

> It is a little vague. No. It’s far too vague. Is this 1901-01-01? The first reform of the 20th century? The fourth? How many have there been?

In my non-native English speaker mind,

"predates 20th-century spelling reforms"

and

"predates any 20th-century spelling reform"

are equivalent, but I can change it to the second form if it's
clearer. Or maybe one of:

"predates all 20th-century spelling reforms"

"predates the first 20th-century spelling reform"

What is the best formulation?

> It should predate some particular reference, of some kind. But not “the 20th century”.

I don't believe I made any reference to the 20th century in general,
only to 20th-century spelling reforms. Sorry if I inadvertently did.

> I was travelling. What’s the need for this?

I have in my database a set of strings following a modern Khmer
spelling and a set of string following pre-reform spellings, and I
want to tag them so I can discriminate between the two, and treat them
differently in my search index.

> Did 20th-century reforms (there the hyphen is needed) all change uniformly or with some particular feature or features that make this division line make sense?

There are two main reforms, one starting in 1915 and finishing in
1967, and one in 1972. The second one was the official spelling until
2009, when the official spelling became the first one. The two kind of
spellings are very different (in short the first is based on
etymology, the second on phonetics). The spelling that predate these
reform (the one which I want to tag) is in turn quite distinctive and
doesn't follow any uniform rule.

The following describes the spelling reforms of the XXth c.:

Sasagawa, Hideo. The Establishment of the National Language in
Twentieth-Century Cambodia: Debates on Orthography and Coinage.
Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2015, pp. 43-72.

https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2015/04/vol-4-no-1-sasagawa/

See also

Antelme, Michel, 2007, Inventaire provisoire des caractères et divers
signes des écritures khmères pré-modernes et modernes employés pour la
notation du khmer, du siamois, des dialectes thaïs méridionaux, du
sanskrit et du pāli, in Bulletin de l’AEFEK (Association d’échanges et
de formation pour les études khmères) n° 12

https://www.academia.edu/12004341/Inventaire_provisoire_des_caract%C3%A8res_et_divers_signes_des_%C3%A9critures_khm%C3%A8res_pr%C3%A9-modernes_et_modernes_employ%C3%A9s_pour_la_notation_du_khmer_du_siamois_des_dialectes_tha%C3%AFs_m%C3%A9ridionaux_du_sanskrit_et_du_p%C4%81li?source=swp_share

It is a very complex and wide topic, I'm not sure how far I should go?
I'm ok not to be trusted, I can bring some Khmer experts in the
discussion if needed, or maybe there are Khmer experts you want to
consult with?


Also, here's an attempt at a reformulation of the 4. Intended meaning
of the subtag:

The tag is meant to be applied to Khmer strings spelled according to a
usage predating any of the 20th-centrury spelling reforms. This does
not correspond to a specific spelling style, nor to a specific
historical period or geographical area. It is instead intended to be
used to contrast with spelling following one of the spelling reforms
of the 20th century.

Would that be a clearer way to express the intent?

Best,
-- 
Elie