Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:42:29 -0700

Élie_Roux wrote:

> Well, then what about people using SLP1 instead of IAST? would that
> also be sa-Latn too although it would be a completely different way of
> writing?

So then there would be two "native" Latin-based writing systems?

If the distinctions were significant enough require separate tagging, I
suppose that would call for variant subtags. 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.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:53:09 -0400

IAST is marginally an independent script for Sanskrit:  SLP1 is a
transliteration from Devanagari mapping ASCII characters 1-1 to Devanagari
characters.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Élie Roux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:54:03 +0100

> So then there would be two "native" Latin-based writing systems?

yes

> If the distinctions were significant enough require separate tagging,
> I suppose that would call for variant subtags.

Ok

> 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?

Thank you,
-- 
Elie

---

From: Élie Roux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:59:54 +0100

Le 12/03/2018 à 18:53, John Cowan a écrit :
> transliteration from Devanagari mapping ASCII characters 1-1 to 
> Devanagari characters.

Well, my understanding to the motivation of the creator of SLP1 is to
encode Sanskrit phonology in a convenient way (one ascii character per
phonologic feature)... at least that's how he explained it to me. He
actually had doubts SPL1 could be used to express modern Hindi features
(which I think he wouldn't have expressed if it was a pure
transliteration of Devanagari). But of course, my comprehension of all
this is quite limited.

Thank you,
-- 
Elie