Re: Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

Élie_Roux wrote:

>> Here we do make a basic distinction between a native writing system
>> using script X, and transliteration into script X of a language not
>> natively written in that script.
>
> Sure... so if we take the hypothesis that SPL1 and IAST are native
> ways to write Sanskrit in Latn, we could have sa-Latn-slpone and
> sa-Latn-iast0?

These are always decided case by case, but yes, in this hypothetical
example that seems reasonable. This would be analogous to the existing
tags "be(-Cyrl)-1959acad" and "be(-Cyrl)-tarask" for Belarusian.

It would be quite a stretch, though, to extrapolate from this and from
the existence of Wylie that Latin is a "native" script for Tibetan.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org


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