Re: Re: IPA as a script

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> 1a.  Roughly how many phonetic transcription systems are there that need 
> encoding?

About a dozen, if you mean transcriptions into systems that can potentially
handle any speech sound.

> 1b.  Roughly how many scripts have phonetic transcription systems based 
> on them that need encoding?

About one in common use; who knows how many individual oddities.

> 2.  Do we want to petition ISO 15924/RA to add that number of "script" 
> subtags, for things that are at least arguably not scripts?

I wouldn't want to petition for more than one.

--

-- 
John Cowan   cowan <at> ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold:
"Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one."
English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to
lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."

Re: Re: IPA as a script

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan <at> ccil.org>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell <at> adelphia.net>
> Cc: <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: IPA as a script
...
> > 1b.  Roughly how many scripts have phonetic transcription systems based 
> > on them that need encoding?
> 
> About one in common use; who knows how many individual oddities.
...

I think we need to make a careful distinction here between
"phonetic transcription systems" and the scripts used to
write them.  I don't know of any phonetic transcription
system that is used with more than a single set of symbols;
be identifying a transcription system you've identified the script.
(In this regard a transcription system is rather like an orthography.)

The only such script I would worry about is IPA.

However, one can't make terribly useful inferences in the other
direction.  For example, knowing that something uses IPA to
transcribe English will only give a general idea what symbols
*might* be used to transcribe the "t" phoneme.

Re: Re: IPA as a script

Randy Presuhn scripsit:

> I think we need to make a careful distinction here between
> "phonetic transcription systems" and the scripts used to
> write them.  I don't know of any phonetic transcription
> system that is used with more than a single set of symbols;
> be identifying a transcription system you've identified the script.
> (In this regard a transcription system is rather like an orthography.)

Granted, but my point was that IPA and its friendly competitors
(Americanist, UPA, LMA) use a subset of the Latin-script characters, and
as such Latin is the only script generally used for phonetic transcription
purposes (leaving out the novel, the idiosyncratic, and so on).

> The only such script I would worry about is IPA.

That strongly depends on which tradition of descriptive linguistics
you belong to, which strongly depends on what language varieties you
study.  I wish it weren't so and everyone used IPA, but they don't.

> However, I think we need to be realistic that there's a lot of stuff
> that we can recognize as being an IPA-based transcription,
> but more narrowly identifying the transcription system may not be
> practical for cataloguers.

Indeed.

--

-- 
Barry gules and argent of seven and six,        John Cowan
on a canton azure fifty molets of the second.   cowan <at> ccil.org

RE: Re: IPA as a script

Indeed, having worked on character encoding for systems of phonetic
transcription in recent years, I know that there is more than just IPA
in use out there. 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan <at> ccil.org] 

> The only such script I would worry about is IPA.

That strongly depends on which tradition of descriptive linguistics
you belong to, which strongly depends on what language varieties you
study.  I wish it weren't so and everyone used IPA, but they don't.

(no subject)

Re: IPA as a script

Peter Constable wrote:

> ??!!

Please forget it, I misunderstood what you want to do with Lphn... 

 [LTRU "resolution" or similar]
> That is certainly something I'd consider. This WG owns the 4646 LT
> space, so if it seems like the sensible solution to us and the
> 15924 JAC won't budge, we can ask them to reserve an ID.

I'm guessing, and maybe it's completely wrong:  I guess it's more in
the "IETF style" if somebody (e.g. you) drafts a short text, then we
discuss it until enough of us like it, "sign" it as individuals, and
send it to somebody at the 15924-side.  Noting that the individuals
who signed it are currently working on 4646bis in the IETF LTRU WG.

Like Harald's 3683 petition last year, everybody was free to sign it,
some did, others didn't, and after some time Harald sent it to the
IESG or maybe only Scott (the A-D at this time).  For something more
"official" we'd need to convince the Chairs and the A-D, that could
get them into lots of trouble (appeals etc.), but what we do or don't
as individuals is nobody's business but our own.  Of course we would
not claim to speak on behalf of LTRU, let alone the IETF.

IMO LTRU doesn't "own" the LT space, it only proposes some rules to
manage it, approved by the IESG on behalf of the IETF after a Last
Call.  The IETF is free to change those rules later (as it did for
1766 and 3066), and while they are in force the review list "owns"
this space to some (small) degree, most of it is determined by the
source standards following the approved rules.

Frank

RE: Re: IPA as a script

Of course you're right here. What I was thinking of was that we could
draft text in 4646bis that effectively defined a subtag as something
proprietary to the LST registry rather than derived from a source
standard -- which means the process you describe.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de] 

I'm guessing, and maybe it's completely wrong:  I guess it's more in
the "IETF style" if somebody (e.g. you) drafts a short text, then we
discuss it until enough of us like it...

IMO LTRU doesn't "own" the LT space, it only proposes some rules to
manage it...

Re: (no subject)

Hi -

As IETF ltru working group co-chair:

> From: "Marion Gunn" <mgunn <at> egt.ie>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>; "TC46-L Information and Documentation Technology List" <tc46-L <at> listserv.heanet.ie>
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:03 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] (no subject)
>

> Our petition is only for the _one_ additional script, Doug. I respect  
> your right to speak for ANSI, but please let nobody exaggerate this  
> Irish request as a "reason" to reject it (it being only as set out  
> below).
...

RFC 2418 says it best.  Note well the last sentence:

   There is no formal membership in the IETF.  Participation is open to
   all.  This participation may be by on-line contribution, attendance
   at face-to-face sessions, or both.  Anyone from the Internet
   community who has the time and interest is urged to participate in
   IETF meetings and any of its on-line working group discussions.
   Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by
   formal representatives of organizations.

Randy, ltru co-chair

Re: (no subject)

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

>> From: "Marion Gunn" <mgunn at egt dot ie>
>
>> Our petition is only for the _one_ additional script, Doug. I respect 
>> your right to speak for ANSI, but please let nobody exaggerate this 
>> Irish request as a "reason" to reject it (it being only as set out 
>> below).
> ...
>
> RFC 2418 says it best.  Note well the last sentence:
> ...
>   Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than
>   by formal representatives of organizations.

To be honest, I have no idea where this bit about "speaking for ANSI" 
comes from.  I didn't mention ANSI in my post, I'm not a member of ANSI, 
and I certainly don't claim to speak for them.  I don't know what 
position ANSI has taken on this subject, if any, and I really don't 
care.

When I said in my post, "Do we want to petition ISO 15924/RA..." I meant 
WE, the LTRU Working Group.  Any time I use the word "we" on this list 
without further qualification, that is what I mean.  And if the WG as a 
group is not permitted to make such a petition, then "we" should be 
interpreted as "individual members of the LTRU WG, acting as 
individuals."

I've already stated more than once on this list that the fact that I'm 
an American does not make me a mouthpiece for American policymakers.  My 
opinions are my own.  They are not necessarily those of any government, 
SDO, or commercial interest.  I would appreciate not having to make this 
vacuous and non-productive point again.

Also, I did not have any specific request in mind when I wrote about 
petitioning ISO 15924/RA for more than one code element, and in 
particular I was not singling out Marion's request.  Apparently lots of 
people want to have IPA declared a separate script.  Peter had mentioned 
that there were other Latin-based transcription schemes besides IPA, and 
transcription schemes based on other writing systems (such as Hangul).

--
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

Re: (no subject)

On 3 Nov 2006, at 07:23, scríobh Doug Ewell:
> ...
> I don't know what position ANSI has taken on this subject, if any,  
> and I really don't care.

US (ANSI?) currently holds a majority of seats on the ISO 15924/RA AC  
which rejected IPA.

>
> When I said in my post, "Do we want to petition ISO 15924/RA..." I  
> meant WE, the LTRU Working Group.

Fine.

> I would appreciate not having to make this vacuous and non- 
> productive point again

Ensuring internationally-balanced ACs would help - failing that,  
please bear in mind that your own ISO National Body (which your  
address tells me is ANSI) is still in the strongest position to help/ 
hinder all such requests.

> Apparently lots of people want to have IPA declared a separate  
> script..

Apparently.
mg

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* mgunn <at> egt.ie * eamonn <at> egt.ie *