Re: [Ltru] Punjabi
"Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org> Wed, 14 March 2007 16:19 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRWCH-0008Gf-K6; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:19:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRWCG-0008GZ-FS for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:19:28 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRWCB-0006jF-3l for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:19:28 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 72so587411ugd for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=aRhycg/QSfhECYKhpoiQ0R9BlYqi5gHoSs09c7FV+DbH+1QY7/KQCiKTxtPlMNuFlZuvJZwNsP04d3WAsnaNmWX+dhdxjrfVUOGxV3X2ibpUg7ruZVTQhiDx4KM9keTJj0/XUUFgqvOV0wgBqz3VApJjjXrlzY8UkGEg/dDAKQ0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=SCmM3sF5auAxAjpWWXivnOQHZ4BnI9zdp3N7fpySdYCqpZ0ksujt1NDXAoHvkRv/Mxlxg94VvOU5ok2Qz5XzjVUDVPuGE1xYSCe6TqhjFkFi2rJa04JwwfStPbIa1xVofUw5Km8P3J6ZHheHLgXcvezEu+/k3xsGBFyPVg20jJY=
Received: by 10.115.17.1 with SMTP id u1mr2946199wai.1173889158258; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.196.2 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <30b660a20703140919n5332348ha9beb1ccf1b02ba8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:19:18 -0700
From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
To: "Sarmad Hussain, Dr." <sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Punjabi
In-Reply-To: <3B848F4FAFB98A43A09D301DAA62A77809F67254@host210-2-148-28.lhr.dancom.net.pk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3B848F4FAFB98A43A09D301DAA62A77809F67254@host210-2-148-28.lhr.dancom.net.pk>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 19401aa02c29445a
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4ec58ef3f343ebf5ac40a04538f9a6fc
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, Nayyara Karamat <Nayyara.Karamat@nu.edu.pk>, iso639-2@loc.gov, sukhjinder_sidhu@hotmail.com, rick@unicode.org, ISO639-3@sil.org, Abbas Malik <abbas.malik@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0981879612=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Thanks for your responses The key question we are faced with (in the Unicode CLDR project) is what language tags (aka locale codes) to use for what is called "Panjabi" in various regions. It appears that according to the meaning of the codes as defined by ISO 639 and thus BCP 47, we should be using: - pa-IN for "Panjabi as generally used in India" -- and pa would customarily use the Guru (Gurmukhi) script, so that would be suppressed in the tag - lah-PK for "Panjabi as generally used in Pakistan" -- and lah would customarily use the Arab (Arabic) script, so that would be suppressed in the tag. (We may need further subdivisions of lah, which we'll be able to express once BCP 47 incorporates ISO 639-3 this year.) This doesn't mean that there aren't pa-PK users or lah-IN users -- we are just focusing above on the largest groupings, initially. We have been using variously combinations of 'pa' with 'Arab', 'Guru', 'PK', and 'IN', but want to make any fixes we need now, since we are starting data submission for the next version of CLDR: see http://unicode.org/press/pr-cldr1.5s.html. We don't have a particular axe to grind here; our concern is that we are using the right codes to denote the right entities, according to the relevant standards. See also the ISO 639-3 Registration Authority's website: - http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/ - http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=lah - http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=pan See also http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ for information about BCP 47. Mark On 3/14/07, Abbas Malik <abbas.malik@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly, if we are going to categorize a language according to the writing > systems that one language has, then Punjabi can be categorize in two ways. > One is Gurmukhi (script used for writing Punjabi in India and is derivation > of the old Indian scripts like SHARDA, LANDHA and TAKRI) and the other is > Shahmukhi (derivation of Perso-Arabic script for writing Punjabi in > Pakistan). Gurmukhi is coded as PAN. How Shahmukhi should be coded? For more > details on the differences of these scripts of Punjabi, please look at the > paper "Punjabi Machine Transliteration" > http://www.puran.info/pub/mgam06-01.pdf. For a standard code page for > Shahmukhi script, please look at the paper "Towards a Unicode Compatible > Punjabi Character Set" http://www.puran.info/pub/mgam05-01.pdf. Punjabi in > India is also written in Devanagari (Hinid script). Now in the present day > on internet, Punjabi has also been started to write in Roman script. Thus, > this is not a good way to categorize a language that is written in two or > more different ways. How this phenomenon about a language should be handled > in standards like ISO 639-3? > > > > Now come to the question of dialects, one can find different Punjabi > dialects in Indian Punjab also, like spoken language in Amritsar (a city of > Indian Punjab on boarder of Pakistan) is little different than language > spoken in Jhalandhr (a city of Indian Punjab). Spoken Punjabi in Amritsar is > very close to the spoken Punjabi in Lahore. If we look at the Pakistani > Punjab, then these dialects are much apart that some time a person who can > understand one dialect, may not be able to understand the other dialect > 100%. Major dialects of Punjabi are Majhi (Spoken in central Punjab, main > city Lahore), Potwari (spoken in northern Punjab, main city Jhehlem), > Seraiki (spoken in southern Punjab, main city Multan). Interestingly all of > these main dialects are represented with different code in ISO 639-3 > standard, Majhi with PNB (Punjabi, western), Potwari with PMU (Punjabi, > Mirpuri) and Seraiki with SKR (Seraiki). All PAN, PNB, PMU, SKR represent > the language Punjabi. I am not expert on the coding, but I think that it > does not look good. There should be some way to categorize subcategories > with in one language. > > > > I try to make things clear. Please do not hesitate to ask more questions. > I would be very happy to answer. > > > > Best regards, > > > > --- > > *M. G. Abbas MALIK* > > Doctorant à l'ED MSTII, > > Univ. Joseph Fourier > > GETALP - LIG, IMAG - campus, > > BP53675 385, rue de la Bibliothèque > > 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France > > Tel: +33 (0) 4 76 51 48 17 > > Fax: +33 (0) 4 76 44 66 75 > > Mob: +33 (0) 6 74 50 46 01 > > Mel: Abbas.Malik at imag.fr, abbas.malik at gmail.com > > Url: www.puran.info > On 3/13/07, Sarmad Hussain, Dr. <sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk> wrote: > > There are many more dialects of Punjabi, depending on the region within > Punjab in Pakistan. What is spoken in Sargodha is much different from what > is spoken in Lahore, etc. However, most agree that they are speaking > Punjabi. There is some difference in vocabulary but real difference is in > the pronunciation. If locale is to be sensitive to these dimensions of a > language, then multiple codes need to be put in. However, if locale is just > identifying the language not the dialect (sub-language? as in some cases the > dialects may not be mutually understandable), then a singular locale would > do. I am not sure what level locale is designed to serve? Could anybody > else further elaborate on this? I am cc:ing a couple of other people, in > case they want to comment. > > > > We had looked at the written version of Punjabi in Pakistan (also called > Shahmukhi) for standardization purposes, and there seems to be less variety > at this level. > > > > Regards, > Sarmad > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Don Osborn [mailto:dzo@bisharat.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:55 AM > *To:* 'Mark Davis'; 'LTRU Working Group'; ISO639-3@sil.org; > iso639-2@loc.gov > *Cc:* Sarmad Hussain, Dr. > *Subject:* RE: [Ltru] Punjabi > > > > Hi Mark. An addendum to your question would be what they write. Might > there be a pa-PK written standard? I don't know, just asking. > > > > I will take the liberty of cc'ing the question to Dr. Sarmad Hussein of > the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences in Lahore, who > also heads the PAN L10n project in Asia ( http://www.panl10n.net ), in > case he has any thoughts. > > > > Don > > > > > > *From:* Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:12 PM > *To:* LTRU Working Group; ISO639-3@sil.org; iso639-2@loc.gov > *Subject:* [Ltru] Punjabi > > > > I have a question about Punjabi. ISO 639-2 gives "pan" as Punjabi. ISO > 639-3 divides Punjabi into three separate codes: > > pmu Mirpur Panjabi > pnb Western Panjabi > pan Panjabi // called Eastern Panjabi in the Ethnologue. > > It looks from this that according to ISO 639-3, there is no macro language > for Panjabi; Pakistanis don't speak "pan" (= "pa"), even as a macro language > they speak something else. So a language pa-PK (or locale pa_PK) is probably > a mistake. Is this a fair statement? > > -- > Mark > -- Mark
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Don Osborn
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: [everson@evertype.com: The Language Su… Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: [everson@evertype.com: The Languag… Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Sukhjinder Sidhu
- RE: [Ltru] Punjabi Sarmad Hussain, Dr.
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Fwd: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Punjabi Abbas Malik
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi John Cowan
- [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Punjabi sukhjinder_sidhu
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Don Osborn
- [Ltru] Re: extlang Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang GerardM
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- [Ltru] Re: extlang Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Marion Gunn
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips
- VS: [Ltru] Re: extlang Erkki I. Kolehmainen
- RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang Don Osborn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang Addison Phillips