Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again (a UNGEGN transliteration)

Mark Davis ☕ <> Wed, 20 July 2011 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667A321F8661 for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.556
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYQpYaY8UVyQ for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C49321F85CA for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so200306ywp.31 for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CnGcyHeomC4+aqlHyfcPlkh8xr9mr82vpLjKXy1Tv40=; b=QaEMoNjJtcmS+tf/sl20k4kcEdEcxQjj2oirlEoE5V4fbNkqPbTH7yPQTj3okrH7Z5 iH9a3FTedVZE63zkdidOHiPgG/X6f0caWPhOZeUW2xNoelgqhT0CK7Etoi5QxQbgLkhy cBzJdKz+cVYmsERnaOiUFOtliMyOdCyy3bIDs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id l21mr4444064yba.364.1311178881177; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <SNT142-w47E796198D72F223478656B3470@phx.gbl> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:21:21 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3ceqrt2hlHrj4Ns1p-VzzUBGtHM
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd48f0a731a8004a8829f0c
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again (a UNGEGN transliteration)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:21:28 -0000

> This may require the identification of the source script or source
language, in addition to the main subtags in the language tag.

>It may also require the identification of the specific conventions used by
transformation, such as the rules used by a UNGEGN transliteration.

This means: specifying a UNGEGN transliteration for the specific convention,
rather than many of the possible alternatives (BGN, LOC, ISO, Korean
Ministry of Information, etc.)

However, I looked over the text, and there is a more complete description
and examples in the following paragraphs. So I think the text flows better
to just remove these two sentences. I reworked that text a bit to make it
clearer and add examples. Since I don't think I can post yet, here are my
working texts.


— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 18:45, "Martin J. Dürst" <>wrote;wrote:

> While we are looking at this phrase ("a UNGEGN transliteration"), I want to
> point out that it was confusing for me because it suggests that there are
> more than one UNGEGN transliteration for a given ordered language pair. If
> that's the case, how is the actually used transliteration identified? If
> it's not the case, then I suggest changing to "the corresponding UNGEGN
> transliteration" (or something similar).