Re: Click letters in ISO 639-3 and Registry (long)

Are there other language names that are not using U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER
APOSTROPHE which should be?

- Hugh Paterson III

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Summary:
>
> We have an opportunity to make recommendations to ISO 639-3/RA about
> changing the spelling of the names of certain African languages to use
> the correct click letters and modifier apostrophe, and make the
> corresponding changes to the Registry. Please comment if this interests
> you.
>
> Details:
>
> Click letters ( ǀ ǁ ǂ ǃ , U+01C0 through U+01C3) were originally
> approximated with ASCII fallbacks ( / // /= ! ) in the Ethnologue
> language listings, which were the basis for ISO 639-3, which adopted the
> fallbacks with few deviations.
>
> Apparently there was a perception within SIL that the proper click
> letters were not added to Unicode until 2004 (they have actually been
> there since the beginning, 1991), so efforts to update the spellings
> were slow in coming.
>
> For many (but not all) language subtags that have Description fields
> with click-letter fallbacks, we have added an additional Description
> field with the correct spelling. We have retained the fallback spelling
> for consistency with 639-3.
>
> The RA did update some of these spellings in 2017, with no announcement,
> as it considered these to be display variations and not substantive
> changes. These first appeared in data files in December 2017. In the BCP
> 47 Registry, we are required to match 639-3 names and to make the first
> Description field equal to the 639-3 reference name, but are allowed to
> modify apostrophes and the like, and have done so a few times.
>
> One of the updated spellings was correct, but most did not use the
> correct click letters as they were intended to; instead, they simply
> replaced one fallback with another:
>
> ǀ (01C0) was changed from / to | (007C)
> ǁ (01C1) was changed from // to || (007C, 007C)
> ǂ (01C2) was changed from /= to ‡ (U+2021 DOUBLE DAGGER)
> ǃ (01C3) remained as ! (0021)
>
> I have discussed this issue with the ISO 639-3 Registrar, who has taken
> it back to the RA, and they agree that if we can provide the actual
> correct spellings for the affected languages -- including click letters
> and modifier apostrophes -- they will make the necessary changes in the
> standard. This does not have to wait for the regular annual cycle.
>
> I am proposing that we recommend these changes to the RA, and that we
> subsequently update the Registry (with forms per process) to use ONLY
> these correct spellings, with no ASCII fallbacks. We are not obligated
> to include an ASCII-only Description field; Section 3.1.5 requires only
> that at least one field be in the Latin script, which the click letters
> and U+02BC are.
>
> The affected ISO 639-3 code elements and corresponding BCP 47 language
> subtags are listed below, each with a proposed disposition. Both active
> and withdrawn code elements are involved.
>
> Please review this carefully and make any comments to the list. If we
> agree on the "correct" spellings, they will be proposed to the RA in an
> appropriate tabular format (no need for Melinda to parse this message
> :).
>
>
> == Currently active subtags ==
>
> Subtag: gku
> Description: ǂUngkue
> Description: =/Ungkue
> ISO 639-3: gku  ǂUngkue
>
> ☞       Spelling is already correct in 639-3; no change needed there
> ☞       Propose removing ASCII fallback spelling in LSR
>
> Subtag: gnk
> Description: //Gana
> Description: ǁGana
> ISO 639-3: gnk  ||Gana
>
> ☞       639-3 changed from one ASCII fallback (//) to another (||)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǁ (01C1) in 2015
> ☞       Propose ǁGana to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: gwj
> Description: /Gwi
> Description: ǀGwi
> ISO 639-3: gwj  |Gwi
>
> ☞       639-3 changed from one ASCII fallback (/) to another (|)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǀ (01C0) in 2015
> ☞       Propose ǀGwi to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: hgm
> Description: Hai//om
> Description: Haiǁom
> ISO 639-3: hgm  Hai||om
>
> ☞       Same as gnk; propose Haiǁom (with 01C1) to RA
>
> Subtag: hnh
> Description: //Ani
> Description: ǁAni
> ISO 639-3: hnh  ||Ani
>
> ☞       Same as gnk; propose ǁAni (with 01C1) to RA
>
> Subtag: huc
> Description: =/Hua
> Description: ǂHua
> ISO 639-3: huc  ‡Hua
>
> ☞       639-3 changed from one ASCII fallback (=/) to a non-ASCII character
> that is still incorrect (‡, U+2021 DOUBLE DAGGER)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǂ (01C2) in 2015
> ☞       Propose ǂHua to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: ktz
> Description: Ju/'hoan
> Description: Juǀʼhoan
> Description: Juǀʼhoansi
> ISO 639-3: ktz  Ju|’hoan
> ISO 639-3: ktz  Ju|’hoansi
>
> ☞       639-3 originally had Ju/'hoan with ASCII fallbacks / and ' (0021,
> ASCII quotation mark)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǀ and ʼ (U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE)
> in 2015
> ☞       639-3 added Juǀ'hoansi (with 01C0 and 0027) in January 2017 but
> changed that to Ju|’hoansi (with 007C and 2019) in December 2017
> ☞       Propose Juǀʼhoan and Juǀʼhoansi (with 01C0 and 02BC) to RA for
> both names and then use only those in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: ngh
> Description: N/u
> Description: Nǀu
> ISO 639-3: ngh  N/u
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used just the ASCII fallback (/)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǀ (01C0) in 2015
> ☞       Propose Nǀu to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: nmn
> Description: !Xóõ
> Description: ǃXóõ
> ISO 639-3: nmn  !Xóõ
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used just the ASCII fallback (!, 0021)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǃ (01C3) in 2015
> ☞       Propose ǃXóõ to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: vaj
> Description: Sekele
> Description: Northwestern !Kung
> Description: Northwestern ǃKung
> Description: Vasekele
> ISO 639-3: vaj  Sekele
> ISO 639-3: vaj  Northwestern !Kung
> ISO 639-3: vaj  Vasekele
>
> ☞       Same as nmn, propose Northwestern ǃKung to RA and use that (along
> with other names), no ASCII
>
> Subtag: xam
> Description: /Xam
> Description: ǀXam
> ISO 639-3: xam  /Xam
>
> ☞       Same as ngh, propose ǀXam to RA and then use only that in LSR (no
> ASCII)
>
> Subtag: xeg
> Description: //Xegwi
> Description: ǁXegwi
> ISO 639-3: xeg  //Xegwi
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used just the ASCII fallback (//)
> ☞       We added spelling with ǁ (01C1) in 2015
> ☞       Propose ǁXegwi to RA and then use only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> == Deprecated subtags ==
>
> Subtag: aue
> Description: =/Kx'au//'ein
> ISO 639-3: aue  =/Kx'au//'ein
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used ASCII fallbacks =/ and // and ' (0027)
> ☞       Withdrawn/deprecated in 2015 and we have never changed spelling
> ☞       Propose ǂKxʼauǁʼein (01C2, 02BC, 01C1, 02BC) to RA and then use
> only that in LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: gfx
> Description: Mangetti Dune !Xung
> ISO 639-3: gfx  Mangetti Dune !Xung
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used ASCII fallback ! (0021)
> ☞       Withdrawn/deprecated in 2015 and we have never changed spelling
> ☞       Propose Mangetti Dune ǃXung (01C3) to RA and then use only that in
> LSR (no ASCII)
>
> Subtag: oun
> Description: !O!ung
> ISO 639-3: oun  !O!ung
>
> ☞       639-3 has always used ASCII fallback ! (0021)
> ☞       Withdrawn/deprecated in 2015 and we have never changed spelling
> ☞       Propose ǃOǃung (01C3, 01C3) to RA and then use only that in LSR
> (no ASCII)
>
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

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