Subject: [Ltru] Re: ANSI and ISO 15924

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:05:46 -0800

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> The question before us here is whether we believe IPA should be 
> registered as a script.

"Registered as a script" could be interpreted in two different ways:

1.  "registered in ISO 15924," which would result in no work at all for 
LTRU, as the 15924 code element would be automatically included in the 
Registry.

2.  "registered by ietf-languages as a script subtag," which is 
impossible under the current RFC 4646 rules.

3.  "registered by ietf-languages as a variant or extension," which is 
currently the only possible alternative.

> Before we get to *that* question, we need to reach consensus on how 
> we'd like to handle transcriptions.  We're progressing, but I'm not 
> ready to say we're "there" yet.  If the agreement we eventually reach 
> requires registration of one or more scripts, then we can deal with 
> figuring out how to make it happen.

If someone pushes ISO 15924/RA-JAC to register a code element for IPA, 
then mark me, someone else will want one for UPA and one for LMA and so 
forth, and there will be a chaotic and haphazard approach to the whole 
genre of phonetic transcription schemes that could have been avoided.

--
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: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:11:45 +0000

My immediate preference is (1) below, Doug, because that immediately  
unties the hands of Irish users put into this bind by the recent  
negative decision taken by ISO 15924 AC. I repeat that all people  
from Ireland are asking that AC for is to register IPA to complete  
the set of scripts we need for our own use, without prejudice to any  
other script applications ISO 15924 AC may wish to consider after  
that. If what you suggest under (3) below is a cut-price offer, as it  
were, a really good (high-functionality) workaround with a quick  
turnaround, I'll accept that as a temporary measure to easy the  
pressing problem for my own people (as well as many others).

In all sincerity,
mg

On 6 Nov 2006, at 08:05, scríobh Doug Ewell:

> 1.  "registered in ISO 15924," which would result in no work at all  
> for LTRU, as the 15924 code element would be automatically included  
> in the Registry.
>
> 3.  "registered by ietf-languages as a variant or extension," which  
> is currently the only possible alternative...

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:56:25 -0500

> genre of phonetic transcription schemes that could have been avoided.

I'm not sure I understand how that would be chaotic and haphazard.
I spent some time on a posting explaining how treating these radically
different phonetic-transcription methods would be principled and
reasonable.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:26:25 -0800

Two notes: 

First, my reading of Doug's message does not seem to have possible
actions for LTRU at this time, and the IETF-related list which might be
appropriate for follow-up discussion appears to be ietf-languages. If there
is a topic  appropriate for LTRU here, a much stronger focus on the actions
LTRU would take needs to be made.

Second, the IETF works by individual technical commentary, and contributors
are understood to speak for themselves.  They can be informed, of course, by
their understanding of the needs of the world, but the message
"as a technical contributor, I believe X is a reasonable short term workaround
for problem Y, but I think we need long term work of form Z" stands on
its own.  As noted in point one, we also have to be clear we're talking to the
right lists of folks for both X and Z.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

At 11:11 AM +0000 11/6/06, Marion Gunn wrote:
>My immediate preference is (1) below, Doug, because that immediately unties the hands of Irish users put into this bind by the recent negative decision taken by ISO 15924 AC. I repeat that all people from Ireland are asking that AC for is to register IPA to complete the set of scripts we need for our own use, without prejudice to any other script applications ISO 15924 AC may wish to consider after that. If what you suggest under (3) below is a cut-price offer, as it were, a really good (high-functionality) workaround with a quick turnaround, I'll accept that as a temporary measure to easy the pressing problem for my own people (as well as many others).
>
>In all sincerity,
>mg
>
>>1.  "registered in ISO 15924," which would result in no work at all for LTRU, as the 15924 code element would be automatically included in the Registry.
>>
>>2.  "registered by ietf-languages as a script subtag," which is impossible under the current RFC 4646 rules.
>>
>>3.  "registered by ietf-languages as a variant or extension," which is currently the only possible alternative...
>
>- -

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:50:50 -0500

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> This model does, then, still call for separate script-level tagging for 
> IPA, Americanist, UPA, and so forth.  My point was, will it be possible 
> to manage this potentially burgeoning set of subtags in a sensible way, 
> instead of looking as though they were registered at N different times 
> by N different groups with N different philosophies?

Yes indeed, and probably not, respectively.  But I do not see why it
*matters* that the list of major phonetic-transcription conventions
is chaotic.  The list of scripts is itself chaotic, inevitably drawing
lines in the shifting sand of varying conventions for writing.  That's why
ISO 15924 has a Registration *Authority*, a group which can make those
decisions, even if it must do so somewhat arbitrarily on occasion.

Are Yiddish and Hebrew separate scripts?  No, though one is an
alphabet and the other an abjad.  Are Antiqua and Fraktur separate?
They are subscripts of Latin.  Are the three flavors of Syriac separate?
Same answer, except that no one is dominant.  Are katakana and hiragana
separate?  Definitely, though they can be mapped one-for-one.  Are Latin
upper and lower case separate, then?  Definitely not, though there were
periods when one used either one or the other depending on the nature
of the writing.

In short, let the users of the major transcription conventions make
their cases clearly.  Either they sell the RA/JAC on it, or they don't.

> For example:  When ietf-languages registered variants (*) for the German 
> orthographic variants, the subtags were "1901" and "1996".  There was 
> originally a proposal to register abbreviation of the word "traditional" 
> instead of "1901", but a sound (IMHO) choice was made to keep the two 
> more or less parallel.

"Traditional" would probably be more useful for the pre-1901
non-standardized set of conventions.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic
realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers,
philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with
whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:39:01 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> If someone pushes ISO 15924/RA-JAC to register a code element for 
>> IPA, then mark me, someone else will want one for UPA and one for LMA 
>> and so forth, and there will be a chaotic and haphazard approach to 
>> the whole genre of phonetic transcription schemes that could have 
>> been avoided.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how that would be chaotic and haphazard. I 
> spent some time on a posting explaining how treating these radically 

If John is referring to his "rough semantic model" post on Friday, I 
should point out that I agree rather strongly with that model.  There 
are some minor snags, of the type Peter mentioned (e.g. I could read 
pt-Latn much more easily than en-Yiii although I make no claim to 
"knowing" Portuguese), but by and large the model is good.

John had written:

> By this model, IPA, Americanist, UPA, LMA, etc. are functionally 
> scripts, and things like broad vs. narrow transcriptions are 
> functionally variants.

(*) Of course, at the time ietf-languages registered whole tags, not 
subtags, but the analogy is clear here.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:55:07 -0500

Ted Hardie scripsit:

> appropriate for follow-up discussion appears to be ietf-languages. If
> there is a topic  appropriate for LTRU here, a much stronger focus on
> the actions LTRU would take needs to be made.

What we are discussing here is whether (1) we need a novel mechanism for
tagging phonetic transcriptions, or whether (2) the existing mechanisms
can be made to work by (a) expanding our rules slightly or (b)
using the existing rules exactly and getting new subtags added.
Only in case 2b is this a matter for ietf-languages alone.

An example of 1 would be introducing a -t- extension.  An example of
2a would be introducing a class of script tags that are not ISO 15924,
such as "ipa0".

-- 
John Cowan  <[email-masked]>  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of
resources is the purpose of markets.  Efficiency is a byproduct of market
systems, not their goal.  The reasons markets work are not because users
have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow
users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are
not for conservation of cheap resources.  --Clay Shirkey

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:43:46 +0000

True, so the best way forward is for all groups concerned to keep one  
another informed (to that end, please, anyone who feels some of my  
postings on this topic belong more properly to IETF and/or related  
lists, feel free to forward them there).
With best wishes,
mg
On 6 Nov 2006, at 16:55, scríobh John Cowan:
> ...

- -

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:25:23 -0800

If I have understood John Cowan correctly, he proposes script subtags
for each different system of phonetic transcription. I suspect that we
would have a very difficult time selling that to the ISO 15924 RA, and
for that reason have suggested we ask them for one script(-variant) ID,
Latp, for Latin-based phonetic transcription, and that we use variants
or an extension to differentiate between specific systems.

If, however, the ISO 15924 RA would accept separate IDs for different
systems of phonetic transcription, then I'd be open to consider that. 

If people here think that an option using one or more 15924 IDs is what
we'd prefer to see, then we should get a request in and start lobbying
with the RA.

Peter

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:32:54 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> ... But I do not see why it *matters* that the list of major 
> phonetic-transcription conventions is chaotic.  The list of scripts is 
> itself chaotic, inevitably drawing lines in the shifting sand of 
> varying conventions for writing.  That's why ISO 15924 has a 
> Registration *Authority*, a group which can make those decisions, even 
> if it must do so somewhat arbitrarily on occasion.

I can't disagree that scripts change over time, as does the definition 
of what is and isn't a script.  Scripts, like countries, can't be 100% 
stable over a long-enough period of time.  Where I'd like to see order 
and stability is in the mechanism we use to tag them -- just as we have 
with countries.

It would be suboptimal, to say the least, if we decided to use a script 
subtag to indicate one phonetic transcription models, a variant subtag 
to indicate another, and no mechanism at all to indicate a third, simply 
because we could not agree on which mechanism to use and our ability to 
plan a cohesive solution was outstripped by our haste to establish them 
one-by-one.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:58:27 -0500

> or an extension to differentiate between specific systems.

"Make no little plans; they have no power to fire men's blood."  I'd rather
ask for IPA first to establish the precedent that different phonetic
systems deserve different script subtags, and then add the others as needed.
But that's a tactical issue; we are in substantial agreement, I think.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:55:30 -0500

> plan a cohesive solution was outstripped by our haste to establish them 

No disagreement there.  The issues now are:  what do we think is the right
way, and can we get the various RAs to go along with it?  Everything else
can be left up to ietf-languages, which I think has enough institutional
memory to prevent the kind of chaos you are talking about.

-- 
But that, he realized, was a foolish            John Cowan
thought; as no one knew better than he          [email-masked]
that the Wall had no other side.                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:32:06 -0800

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: subtags for phonetic transcriptions (was RE: [Ltru] Re: ANSI andISO 15924
>

...
...

The transcription systems I'm familiar with fall into two groups:
those based on latin script and those based on IPA.  I'm sure
there are others, but I suspect that relatively few of these
actually have a script that is exclusively their own.

To get down to specific examples, consider a few of the
systems that have been used for phonemic transcriptions of English.
One of my old textbooks (Peter Ladefoged's "A Course in Phonetics"
p. 64) shows a nice comparison chart for Kenyon & Knott,
Trager & Smith, Prator & Robinette, Jones, and Webster's.
With the exception of Webster's, they aren't distinguished by
the characters used, but rather in the way those characters
are associated with sounds.  Consequently, I'd hope they'd
be tagged with the same script subtag.

What's the situation for transcription methods not based on
IPA or lat*?

(BTW, if the transcription system uses latn, would
en's Suppress-Script still take effect for a transcription
of English?)

Randy

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:34:54 +0000

So would I. We are.
mg

On 7 Nov 2006, at 15:58, scríobh John Cowan:

>> If I have understood John Cowan correctly, he proposes...
>
> ... I'd rather

On 8 Nov 2006, at 05:32, scríobh Randy Presuhn:
> ... The transcription systems I'm familiar with fall into two groups:
> actually have a script that is exclusively their own....

- -

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:35:22 +0100

> But that's a tactical issue; we are in substantial agreement, I think.

BTW, checking Grek for a case discussed on the W3C I18N list - a complete
waste of time, because you answered it before me ;-) - I stumbled over Pldr.

Is "Pldr" a useful precedent for our Latp / Lphn / Xphn / IPA discussions ?

I've not the faintest idea what Plrd is, and I'm also too lazy to research
what it might be, but its description mentions "phonetic".

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:41:45 -0500

> What's the situation for transcription methods not based on

Well, all standardized transcription methods are based on (extended)
Latin script, including IPA.  The question is, if you know IPA,
can you cope with the others or do you need a mapping table?

My sense is that the Americanist variants you mention are not much
problem to people who know IPA, but that the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet
and Laandsmalalfabetet are *really drastically* different, enough
so that you won't have a clue if you just know IPA.

> en's Suppress-Script still take effect for a transcription

Argh.

-- 
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      [email-masked]
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:25:25 -0500

> what it might be, but its description mentions "phonetic".

Pollard phonetic is a script used to write the A-Hmao variety of
Hmong.  It is an abugida, like Ethiopic or Indic.
It has nothing to do with phonetic transcription.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    [email-masked]
Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.  --Oscar Wilde

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:16:09 -0800

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:41 AM
...

This leads me to conclude that having a script for something like
"IPA and IPA-based systems" would be highly desirable, since
it would otherwise leave us no way to tag something that is known
to be a transcription when cataloguer lacks the expertise to
identify the specific transcription system.

It also leads me to conclude that although some cataloguers
might only be able to tag something as being, for example,
English transcribed using an IPA-based script, that there
will be a real need for further subtags to specifically identify
the system in use.  The same sequence of symbols in
the Trager & Smith and Prator & Robinette systems, for
example, can have radically different pronunciations.

What should the process for handling a registration
request for a transcription system be?  Is it necessary
to demonstrate that it's being used by giving
examples of documents where it has been used, 
or might it perhaps be more important to provide a
reference that describes the transcription system iteself?

Randy

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:44:59 -0500

Randy Presuhn scripsit:

> The same sequence of symbols in

Well, true.  And the sentence "Johnny went to the bathroom in his
pants" means radically different things in en-us and en-gb.  That's
still a variant-level distinction (as I mentioned, we treat country-
and higher-level regional variants as separate from other variants
for historical reasons and convenience, not because they are at a
fundamentally different level).

> reference that describes the transcription system iteself?

The latter has been standard for other kinds of variants in
the RFC 1766/3066/4646 tradition.  Scripts haven't been
much of a problem historically.

-- 
John Cowan   [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime.  The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.  --Northrop Frye