Re: Forms for July 2017 changes to ISO 15924

I was not asking "what are they doing here". My only concern is that, if we are providing a phonetic transcription of a language name, that it should be the autoglossonym as pronounced by a native speaker.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 8:47 AM
To: Peter Constable <[email protected]>; ietf-languages <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Ietf-languages] Forms for July 2017 changes to ISO 15924

Peter Constable wrote:

> The entries for Naxi Dongba and Naxi Geba have phonemic 
> transcriptions. I'm not sure where those came from. Does anyone know 
> whether those are Naxi pronunciations of the names, or Mandarin 
> pronunciations?

To answer one possible interpretation of Peter's question, which is "what are they doing here?", the script subtag 'Nkgb' for Nakhi Geba has had one of these since it was added in 2009:

Description: 'Na-'Khi ²Ggŏ-¹baw

RFC 5646 says Description fields are not supposed to be used for transcriptions and translations, but also says that we try to match them to the reference name(s) in the core standard (language, extlang, region, script). So we already have Lengua de señas catalana and Llengua de Signes Catalana, and finlandssvenskt teckenspråk and suomenruotsalainen viittomakieli, and 'Na-'Khi ²Ggŏ-¹baw, and the current proposals add "na²¹ɕi³³ to³³ba²¹ and na²¹ɕi³³ gʌ²¹ba²¹. In all likelihood we would not have added any of these if they weren't in the ISO standard.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages