Re: ISO 15924 and differences in French names of scripts

From: Denis Jacquerye (moyogo@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:58:06 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677"

    On 10/26/05, Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org> wrote:
    > > Unicode people can't seem to agree whether to use the recommanded
    > > orthography or not.
    >
    > We received a bug report on *'Sun Oct 23 11:09:17 2005'
    > (http://dev.icu-project.org/cgi-bin/locale-bugs?findid=901) that *"Iles
    > d'Åland" (one code) uses a different style than the others. This is
    > probably due to the fact that AX was very recently encoded, and the
    > translator used the newer orthography for that name. Clearly there
    > should be consistency among the names, but CLDR goes through a process
    > of design, data collection, vetting, and then release
    > (http://www.unicode.org/cldr/), with the next release expected at the
    > end of next March. Simply because a bug is not fixed and released within
    > 3 days, no matter how vital it is, doesn't mean that "Unicode people
    > can't seem to agree whether to use...".
    >
    > Mark
    >
    > BTW, There appear to be plenty of post-1990 instances of Îles in
    > customary usage. For example, at lemonde.fr, there are
    > *190 éléments* publiés "*depuis un mois*" avec le(s) mot(s) ou
    > expression(s) "*Îles*" dans "*tout l'élément*" et classés par
    > "*pertinence*".
    >

    I didn't mean to highjack the topic. I didn't mean to say that a bug
    should be fixed in 3 days.
    But the recommendation is out since 1990, that's older than many
    versions of Unicode.
    Michael's question was about different translations being used. At
    least one is the exact same word with just a different orthography. I
    think the recommendation is relevant everywhere it should be applied.
    The example of the inconsistency in cldr was just an exemple of how
    unknown the recommedation is unknown or followed even by experts.

    It is important to understand that the recommendation is just a
    recommendation. The old orthography is still correct and can still be
    used. There is nothing incorrect in medias using the old orthograhpy.
    But the new orthography is recommended. Unicode should use it whether
    it be in script names or cldr.

    > Denis Jacquerye wrote:
    >
    > >On 10/25/05, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Hi,
    > >>
    > >>I'm not a specialist, but I can give some personal view.
    > >>
    > >>Michael Everson, le Tue 25 Oct 2005 15:55:46 +0100, a écrit :
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>ISO 15924 Blocks-4.0.0.txt
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>ancien italique alphabet italique
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>they respectively mean "old italic" and "italic alphabet". The issue
    > >>here is hence whether one needs to express "old".
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>bouhide bouhid
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>bouhide seems more frenchish.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>laotien lao
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>laotien is probably more correct.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>osmanais osmanya
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>osmanais is most probably more correct.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>runique runes
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>runes is the correct word.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>syllabaire autochtone canadien unifié syllabaires autochtones canadiens
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>"unifié" means "unified". Is there a need to express "unified"? Else,
    > >>the trailing 's'-es give a plural form. Is there a plural form in the
    > >>original english name?
    > >>
    > >>As for accents differences, I'd say the version without accents is
    > >>probably wrong :)
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >The recommanded orthography of 1990 allows both 'i' or 'u' with
    > >circumflex to be substituted with 'i' or 'u' without when there is no
    > >ambiguity. Both the old orthography and the 1990 one are correct but
    > >of course the one without circumflex on i or u is recommanded.
    > >This diffrence "bengalî", "bengali" is simply old vs 1990 orthography.
    > >
    > >The French locale in CLDR itself contains this disagreement of orthography.
    > >In http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/main/fr.xml we have "Iles
    > >d'Åland" but "Îles Cocos".
    > >Unicode people can't seem to agree whether to use the recommanded
    > >orthography or not.
    > >The recommanded orthography should be used.
    > >
    > >See http://www.orthographe-recommandee.info/ (in French).
    > >
    > >--
    > >Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > 

    --
Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:59:50 CST