Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for subtag kmpre20c

Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu> Fri, 22 November 2019 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <roux.elie@gmail.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 7C5201202A0 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:10:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 GdDVE9mhNmCj for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:10:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7CF120058 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id 2C0487C4C0C; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153DE7C4BF4 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udPvK1CIcK9k for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:10:03 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=192.0.33.72; helo=pechora2.lax.icann.org; envelope-from=roux.elie@gmail.com; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [192.0.33.72]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E58E7C0B30 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:10:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com (mail-io1-f44.google.com [209.85.166.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C817F1E050F for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:10:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id k13so7318205ioa.9 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:10:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YWj79g/o09udBX5XZTXiyLUahV99erHDuPqgZCJsEx8=; b=P0QuB1+7pceZHX2/MtNwixvKsw2QDM82//sEAwNxpPu7th3vXSh/1yWuaIGIFvHPRp 10KUXysuF4FAMoBojCR75rHMf0gJtXAHry85g3xg2RraX+u2qugIjM1/SKgh74Svjwj6 i3Y2pdRKpLJjhN3iO1mpQROQsAS4WvPNXeuWFE9MbA4y8rW4MlYT+bbEaxiYv3+pXJKS A3KrRxDn96e+C4XeKVCrb4pohV9258d+kVx0RhTdeIAkTPPPRFaoCs9s653AmWAwrmsY KKVUgHtviswn4yeyZDfqyuzErCwEWAFEnt63J+tnDghFHRZQ+VU+DDKJ19Hm0siQ6dJG l+bQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXm0AHUQobL7e8vpB+OaDnfQXQ7c9YzLnYSwnDCwxDQDeOGJ6u7 dS+YV6FXX4lLlIodV/yAOZ/Qo8PHEJgxQfGlUlLi3oE0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKcm1oCeIWKRbxxMaLt0dcuasvi3eRKeYLZ0IC6n/iY8UxpbPR4qCN1Y2/2ZF+ITzXn1Ks9A4nFxUHg24TeaI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:bb94:: with SMTP id g20mr13379706jan.120.1574417399729; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:09:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191121141336.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.9a3859061b.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> <CANfi1JjyouJV-CLXdKOwvRxcFPM0csTe8=+44hszSBhVTxd-qA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANfi1JjyouJV-CLXdKOwvRxcFPM0csTe8=+44hszSBhVTxd-qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=89lie_Roux?= <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:09:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CANfi1JjeSo2-Ez52Nu3Lcb3jC9skPp2_YWza8Xnusu0Xi8vHuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/xX3f_Jz1BxdROr4qOqQWvSrGzFs>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for subtag kmpre20c
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:10:08 -0000

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