Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
everson at evertype.com
Mon Nov 13 11:27:30 CET 2006
At 23:49 -0800 2006-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
>I'd like to remind the list and the Reviewer
>that the two registration forms submitted by
>Reshat Sabiq, for variant subtags related to the
>Tatar language, have now gone well past the
>standard two-week review period, and decisions
>on these requests need to be made. (The
>"decision" might be to extend the review period
>for another two weeks, but simply ignoring the
>requests will not do.)
I don't understand what it is that he is
requesting. Both registration requests are long
>(September 26, 48 days ago)
Why is GNU libc discussed here? The request talks
about about population numbers being "a tad
confusing" and the proposer's "vague
remembrances". And it is a request for a "variant
of a Latin-based alphabet". Is this an
orthography? Or an alphabet? The source cited is
a Wikipedia article, which includes the following
reference: IQTElif is further justified here:
-- on a "Learn Turkish-Tatar-English Easily"
site. "Justified"? The Wikipedia article is not
NPOV, going on about Moscow authorities "human
rights violation" in banning Latin or
non-Cyrillic alphabets for Volga Tatar. As far as
I can see, this "alphabet" is just samizdat.
>(October 21, 22 days ago)
This is even more rambling, going on about the
proposer's train of thought. What is it about? Is
it pan-Turkic? Is it Tatar-specific? Where are
any real references? What is the relation of this
to, for instance, Nughajbik, Ämirxan, Qorban, &
Fajzullin's 1938 Rusca-tatarca syzlek (see Kazan
Tatar at http://www.evertype.com/alphabets/)?
What about the numerous alphabets for Turkic
languages in Allworth's Nationalities of the
I think I have to reject both of these requests.
They are underspecified. I believe I had already
rejected the first on 22 October, though that
wasn't very final, I admit.
>In general I support them, and feel that they
>fall outside the current debate over how to
>encode phonetic transcription models such as IPA.
They're entirely unrelated to that. I know there
are orthographies for Tatar. I just don't know
what is being requested here, and there are no
>They are orthographic conventions used at one
>time or another by native writers of Tatar (by
>preference or otherwise) and not for any special
>linguistic purpose. To my mind, the requested
>subtags are similar in nature to the German
>"1901" and "1996" variant subtags.
Yes, but there we had the Duden.
>As a side note, we should ensure that all
>political references to the motives for
>introducing either of these orthographic
>conventions are removed (e.g. references to
>"human rights violations"). These do not
>provide the user with any insight in choosing
>the correct tag.
To say the least.
Sorry, but I don't believe we are approving these
as they stand. Please discuss if you feel
otherwise. I certainly did not detect consensus
about these on the list.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages