Re: Towards a Turkic Script System

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Wed Aug 07 1996 - 11:11:58 EDT

At 08:55 1996-08-07, Alex Eulenberg wrote:
>Once again I would like to invite all interested parties to view the
>proposed standards for encoding Turkic languages on the macintosh.
>The URL you should go to is...
>Those interested in Kazakh transliteration may also be interested in the
>Latin1 (ISO 8859-1) compatible transliteration scheme for Kazakh,
>exemplified by the Kazakh Story referenced on that page. It is intended to
>be a transliteration of Cyrillic and is not, in my opinion, the best way
>to go about romanizing Kazakh. So I have left the q/k and g/gh
>distinctions intact. Notice that the letter "w" represents both phonetic
>"w" and "uw". I decided to use "y" instead of i-umlaut (used by, e.g., the
>Library of Congress and /Kazakh and Kirghiz Studies Bulletin/) to
>represent back i (Turkish dotless i). There were two reasons for this.
>First, I believe that umlauting should systematically represent FRONTING,
>not backing; second, and more importantly, i-umlaut is a typographically
>unweildy character. In fact all umlauted letters are to an extent
>unwieldy, but in Kazakh, the other umlauted letters are limited to one per
>word. Backed i occurs often several times per word. This is downright
>ugly, especially in a proportional font like Times Roman. My preference
>would be to follow the Turkish convention of dotless i, but unfortunately,
>that letter is not a part of the Latin1 character set.

Naturally I think the Macintosh standards for Turkic Latin and Turkic
Cyrillic are wonderful. But I would.

If you want to extend KO18 to support the Turkic Cyrillic I suggest making
mappings between it and the Mac Turkic Cyrillic. Don't just go for Qazaq.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT