Subject: [Ltru] Re: extlang

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:58:04 -0700

GerardM <gerard dot meijssen at gmail dot com> wrote:

> My question is about Min Nan, according to what is proposed zh-nan. 
> This language has been written in both the Chinese script and the 
> Latin script for several centuries. According to my information it was 
> already written in the Latin script in the 16th century in the 
> Philippines. The question, zh implies one of the Chinese scripts. 
> Should the code therefore be zh-nan-Latn and, should there not be a 
> code for the particular orthography as well and can a code for the 
> orthography replace the Latn indicator.
>
> NB this is a practical question as the Wikipedia in Min-Nan is written 
> in the Latin script.

My opinion, and mine alone, is that you should be able to use "zh-nan" 
and not worry about the script subtag.  Not every tagging scenario 
requires explicit specification, or even implication, of the script, 
just as not every tagging scenario requires identification of the 
region.

Specifying the script is important when it is necessary to contrast it 
with other scripts.  For example, you might write "zh-nan-Latn" to 
distinguish it from "zh-nan-Hani" if it were necessary to distinguish 
between the two.  The fact that the Min-Nan Wikipedia text is written 
does not necessarily mean this is necessary.

This is one of the things I dislike about Suppress-Script: it tends to 
imply that the script subtag is always important, and is simply being 
omitted in this tag for brevity or compatibility.

If we get rid of extended language subtags, of course, then this is a 
moot point: "nan" can be given a Suppress-Script of "Latn", or can be 
left alone, and neither choice would imply anything about Han.

I see no reason why the Min-Nan *orthography* needs its own subtag, 
unless (again) it needs to be distinguished from Min-Nan written in some 
other Latin orthography.  Thousands of languages use the Latin script 
with their own orthography.  There's nothing unique about Min-Nan in 
this regard.

--
Doug Ewell · Fullerton, California, USA · RFC 4645 · UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:39:32 -0400

> omitted in this tag for brevity or compatibility.

Well, we are stuck with it, and as currently written "zh-nan" *means*
"zh-nan-Hani", alas.  So if we go with extlangs, we need to add language
allowing, and giving the interpretation of, the Suppress-Script: header
when attached to an extlang subtag, and explaining that extlangs
don't inherit Suppress-Script: from their parents.

> left alone, and neither choice would imply anything about Han.

Indeed.

-- 
There is / One art                      John Cowan <[email-masked]>
No more / No less                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
To do / All things
With art- / Lessness                     -- Piet Hein

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:11:40 -0700

GerardM wrote:

> The confusing thing for me now is that zh implies a script.

I don't necessarily agree with you and John on this, but I'll leave this 
point alone.

> It is the one reason why it is is reasonable to include Min Nan as 
> being part of Chinese. Without it the whole argument of zh including 
> all the other languages falls for me flat on its face. So I do not 
> understand how Min Nan in another script can be accepted without 
> identifying the script either through the orthography or through 
> identifying the script.

*IF* we implement extended language subtags -- I don't feel comfortable 
using the term "extlang" any more, since it's not the formal term and 
doesn't appear in any official Terms and Definitions section -- then we 
are implementing them strictly on the basis of macrolanguage assignments 
made by ISO 639-3/RA.  If their decision is that Min Nan "is a" Chinese, 
then that is that; we don't second-guess them and toss out the ones we 
don't agree with.

The only exceptions are (1) when a primary language subtag already 
exists for the language in question, which is *exactly* analogous (IMHO) 
to using alpha-2 ISO 639-1 codes in preference to alpha-3 ISO 639-2 
codes when they are available, and (2) sign languages, which are 
fundamentally different and not really handled in a consistent manner 
between ISO 639-2 and -3.

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> This is one of the things I dislike about Suppress-Script: it tends 
>> to imply that the script subtag is always important, and is simply 
>> being omitted in this tag for brevity or compatibility.
>
> "zh-nan-Hani", alas.  So if we go with extlangs, we need to add 
> language allowing, and giving the interpretation of, the 
> Suppress-Script: header when attached to an extlang subtag, and 
> explaining that extlangs don't inherit Suppress-Script: from their 
> parents.

I prefer "don't necessarily inherit."  We would certainly want extended 
language subtags to inherit Suppress-Script from their Prefix *by 
default*, so that all the Arabics, all the Quechuas, etc. would do the 
Right Thing.  But we would allow this to be overridden at the second 
level.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:35:49 -0400

> Right Thing.  But we would allow this to be overridden at the second 

That's what I thought at first too.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work,
because there is no explicit way to say "there is no Suppress-Script
for this language".  So if Hani is the Suppress-Script for 'zh' (as is
appropriate), but if there is no dominant script for "zh-nan", then if
there is Suppress-Script inheritance, there is no way to specify the
correct Suppress-Script header for 'nan'.

-- 
Time alone is real                      John Cowan <[email-masked]>
  the rest imaginary
like a quaternion       --phma          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:46:14 -0700

From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]

> *IF* we implement extended language subtags... then we

Just as a point of history, it was more or less this community that decided this: the ISO 639/RA-JAC had no choice about whether Min Nan "is a" Chinese (in the sense of whether "nan" must be treated as encompassed by "zh(o)") because the IETF Languages List established that association several years earlier.

Peter

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:11:38 -0700

John Cowan wrote:
> So if Hani is the Suppress-Script for 'zh' (as is
> appropriate), 

Only 'Hani' isn't a Suppress-Script entry for 'zh' and furthermore, it 
should not be. The Hant/Hans distinction is important for Chinese 
written texts: we do not want people to suppress these subtags even by 
implication. Ideally these should be encouraged in written contexts.

Note: here is the record for Chinese:

%%
Type: language
Subtag: zh
Description: Chinese
Added: 2005-10-16
%%

Suppress-Script is an *informative* field relevant to tag choice. It's 
purpose is to discourage the use of script subtags in tags that 
previously would not have included them (such as "en-US" or "es-MX"). It 
is not meant to turn off script subtags when they represent a real 
textual distinction--even when the subtag is supposedly suppressed.

The important point is to use the script subtag only when it indicates 
an actual distinction in the text. Gerard is free to choose between 
"zh-nan" and "zh-nan-Latn" depending on his requirements. If he were to 
have both Han and Latin script representations of Min Nan, then he 
should probably use the script subtag. Since he doesn't believe that 
there is a 'Hani' orthography, he doesn't need to use 'Latn' to indicate 
that he isn't use it.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:27:20 -0400

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> should not be. 

Oops, a brain-fart on my part.  Here is the list of macrolanguages
with Suppress-Scripts:

ay Aymara Suppress-Script:Latn
fa Persian Suppress-Script:Arab
gn Guarani Suppress-Script:Latn
kok Konkani Suppress-Script:Deva
ms Malay Suppress-Script:Latn
no Norwegian Suppress-Script:Latn
om Oromo Suppress-Script:Latn
ps Pushto Suppress-Script:Arab
qu Quechua Suppress-Script:Latn
sq Albanian Suppress-Script:Latn
sw Swahili Suppress-Script:Latn
tmh Tamashek Suppress-Script:Latn
yi Yiddish Suppress-Script:Hebr

I think that none of these except Konkani constitute any problem.
I'm posting on Konkani to ietf-languages.

-- 
Dream projects long deferred             John Cowan <[email-masked]>
usually bite the wax tadpole.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --James Lileks

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:29:00 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> So if Hani is the Suppress-Script for 'zh' (as is appropriate),
>

I apologize for jumping into this without first verifying Gerard's claim 
that "zh implies one of the Chinese scripts," i.e. that it has a 
Suppress-Script.

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:09:34 +0000

What Peter Constable says below sounds true to me, from what I can  
recall of the little I could understand of that particular debate,  
which was not very much at all.

FWIW, for a relevant example of my TC 46 Terms and Definitions in  
International Standards teamwork, please see TC 46/SC 11's first  
standard, ISO 15489. For more of my work (again, in the field of  
compiling and harmonizing Terms and Definitions in International  
Standards), please consult also TC 37's ISO 704 and ISO 5127. I  
believe they all provide good models, should LTRU ever decide to go  
the T&D route. I could cite more examples, but trust this note is  
enough to assist list members who are busy e-mailing me privately, so  
that we may avoid more mail than is needed at present (short  
lunchtime of a busy working day in Ireland).

mg

On 4 Sep 2007, at 15:46, scríobh Peter Constable:

> Just as a point of history, it was more or less this community that  
> decided this: the ISO 639/RA-JAC had no choice about whether Min  
> Nan "is a" Chinese (in the sense of whether "nan" must be treated  
> as encompassed by "zh(o)") because the IETF Languages List  
> established that association several years earlier.
- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:42:09 +0200

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:09:34PM +0000,
 Marion Gunn <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 49 lines which said:

> for a relevant example of my TC 46 Terms and Definitions in
> Standards), please consult also TC 37's ISO 704 and ISO 5127.

I would appreciate that people who post references to ISO documents
also indicate how to find them. Since ISO documents are typically not
available from ISO, you have to google or wikipediate to try to find a
more or less official copy. That's painful and you risk finding an
obsolete version.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:45:01 -0400

> more or less official copy. That's painful and you risk finding an

They are indeed available from ISO as well as from the national bodies
that make up ISO.  At a high, high price, determined by page count
not utility.

-- 
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: [email-masked]]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:54:07 +0200

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:45:01AM -0400,
 John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> They are indeed available from ISO [...] At a high, high price, 

And not redistributable. And I don't even know if they are available
in a easily processable format (XML, plain text, etc).

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:00:09 +0000

All true. So, am I wrong to make the assumption that at least some  
members of this list must have access to the docs I listed - surely,  
those who are also contributors to ISO Standards must have, and have  
gained enough from reading them to be able to act on the principles  
they advocate? Right or wrong, that is hardly my problem.
mg

- -