From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2008 - 16:59:15 CST
> why UNGEGN and not ISO?
Well perhaps because UNGEGN transliteration systems are
in wider actual implementation than most ISO standardized
transliterations, and are published freely available
on the web (http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/) and are thus easily
accessible to all.
The UNGEGN also has more inclusive and useful documentation.
for example, not only presents the UN system, but compares
it with the BGN/PCGN 1956 system, the I.G.N. System 1973,
ISO 233:1984, the royal Jordanian Geographic Centre System,
and the Survey of Egypt System.
> I agree with Jony that there should be hundreds of transcription charts --
> one for each pair of languages.
> But there should be only ONE transLITERation chart for each script pair.
This is just nonsense, even if you restrict it to the context
of ISO standards. See, for example:
ISO 233: Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters
ISO 233-2: Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters --
Part 2: Arabic language -- Simplified transliteration
ISO 233-3: Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters --
Part 3: Persian language -- Simplified transliteration
So 3 published ISO standards for transLITERation of Arabic script
to Latin script, two of which are specifically simplified for
easier use for particular languages.
And while no doubt I have now contributed to the problem by
responding on this thread, I would like to second others
on the unicode list who have suggested this whole topic of
CLDR transliteration guidelines belongs over on the CLDR
discussion list, and not here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 17:01:54 CST