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

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2614E21F89BA for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DZaW-JB3ktH for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc3-s45.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s45.snt0.hotmail.com [65.54.51.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C54A21F86A6 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT142-W24 ([65.55.90.135]) by snt0-omc3-s45.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:46:34 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT142-w24002C1BF58DFC9D07B7B5B34C0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7003e37c-5e1b-42dc-8fcb-a7e4aa6e0b63_"
X-Originating-IP: [64.134.191.120]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:46:31 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2011 13:46:34.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[70389A60:01CC46E3]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again (a UNGEGN transliteration)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:46:38 -0000


Hi.
From: "Martin J. DÃrst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:45:20 +0900

> On 2011/07/19 21:00, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:>>19.07.2011 02:36, Mark Davis â wrote:>>> It may also require the identification of the specific conventions used>>> by transformation, such as the rules used by a UNGEGN transliteration.>>> How does that look?>> Looks great. As a minor issue, âa UNGEGN transliterationâ is perhaps not>> an optimal example, as the abbreviation is less widely known than many>> names of transliteration schemes (like Hepburn and pinyin), but an>> example helps to clarify the point> 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).> Regards,    Martin.
Introduction, paragraph 5, has an example; would it be enough to point to it?

 | Language Tag                       | Description                  |   +------------------------------------+------------------------------+
   | und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007 | the content is in Cyrillic,  |
   |                                                            | transformed from Latn,       |
   |                                                            | according to a UNGEGN        |
   |                                                            | specification dated 2007.
Best,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com