Re: [Ietf-languages] Northern Thai Variants

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Thu, 10 January 2019 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
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 EF0F0130E66 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:57:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.041
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 pu-ROMAkiDGj for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C1E12894E for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id m1so11768939wml.2 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:57:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+qlvkRtBM3XzYo23kVRxRG/Lnnlpon2PydpR4UE0yho=; b=PI+9WGGB5rYIBHhj40Q0wE9SXDOwz0tzeIvJwyF+gtBPhQl9LeS6u1me02Gdywduy0 qtfzyBCZBlOlX7Q7urPCEvDoXgHPARpDNSFIbII/y/OSS1mFbsUR/t63uHdT4YlGtc0d fn3RuRWg7PvXA0bmP4C5liggJEVBZbN/JtodkzudOlYmIi67cPLZUQfpXj+1TPCQ9VRE wmoDPGDS52nlMa23bERP5vhHEsowFGN0KYIfn2gdK2HuyoPW8Jv+s+GnZv9oJ3/FkGc0 yOZN67TlHaUBZrCdYgD33KKxD5T7Kz32SyG0QO83NJm8902G0Q1yxMJpWm+Piolx+Kq2 usSw==
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:cc; bh=+qlvkRtBM3XzYo23kVRxRG/Lnnlpon2PydpR4UE0yho=; b=swGeLM4JcdYeLiv6p9NUDR+auQkwGhA3tPmHQINMthGmdyhG4aIETR3DOWISiM42w8 J7cMXrH2lQHgIK7GOHhK89K83yEq/vKhBBrZ67y2MdBiggxaArj+GODXBg1m8g0Esjw3 m3Qvj4t4Q6lWDASPzjqpD7bogoqi34DbOgRWo42sAp/YOiGhOJL4r8n5/Mkk6S4/DwvX FbHn3lyCK8KdszezKBmnD0rYR9TQnluNf0tc+0soFRgk/3Oqyr3n+BlMWb9DmxWXiuBA /bCqQDuYjvx75BJnyzaWDFjB1TP7H8c5Ol8YJ7JBfbCzYARZ9zEbyDab3bIlzIBSnMzL guEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukffbrtHvHjYVJTndmJAZPftu1Rkzqw6nkouWFpDh0gmq6ML2CwI cFrQi+t+Qm7lbLsWvnBwUkwkatfj7ntKPdkXuUswZFC/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5xK9ZNsmxUTo+lCzfl4otc95HuTTi8wO6/K5zF0JVn7BwnT5gMq2UdsRBBXHSGtLvKspPzEVwUqwySzmQwWeo=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8f41:: with SMTP id r62mr9933238wmd.141.1547135849453; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:57:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190110090859.23aec72a@JRWUBU2>
In-Reply-To: <20190110090859.23aec72a@JRWUBU2>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:57:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_T46TO++bSwM+7p7VktV0kp8keYEgoKh_=KVzWn9eWPYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham=40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: ietf-languages@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b9fcb9057f1ca249"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/yUJbhLuqim0HzZFNH_2ZC3gv2j8>
Subject: Re: [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 15:57:34 -0000

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 AM Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham=
40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

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
>

The first is of course fine and needs no registration.

I am firmly opposed to the second and third: the names are far too generic,
and people would use them for all sorts of things in all sorts of random
ways.  We would begin to see "en-US-phonetic" for foe-NET-ik
ree-SPELL-ingz, something which would have absolutely nothing to do with
Northern Thai phonetic use of Thai script.  This is a principle we have
fairly consistently stuck with: variant tags are meant to make sense only
in specific contexts, with a very few exceptions like 'fonipa', since the
IPA is inherently generic.

If there are no names for these conventions in Northern Thai or Central
Thai, try to come up with some.  Perhaps the names of the people who
established or promoted these orthographies?  That's what we've done with
sl-bohoric and sl-dajnko as well as be-tarask.  Dates can also be helpful,
as in ru-luna1918, the Russian orthography published by the committee
headed by A. A. Lunacharsky in 1918.

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.
>

You can't: as Mark Davis points out, Preferred-Value for a variant subtag
is only a suggestion.   But as he also says, that doesn't matter much.
What's important is to keep Northern Thai in context somehow.

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.


I think that should only be applied to a document whose original was in
Lana script and has been actually transliterated (by hand or machine, it
doesn't matter) to another script.  It would be suitable for a
Hebrew-letter version of the Syriac Bible (something I have seen done), but
not for documents originally written in nod-Thai.


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


A more broadly scoped question: given the difficulties in reading Northern
Thai, even in Thai script, at all, is it really necessary to mark this
distinction clearly?  Are there spelling checkers, for instance, or is the
barrier between the two variants high enough to make life difficult for
readers of one to handle the other?  Is there any significant
standardization (even de facto, like standard English) around either
variant?