From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2010 - 17:51:31 CDT
I am guessing you have your tongue firmly in your cheek :-')
"Bengalese" may be "American" word not "English".
I made another mistake. Haven't I ?
see - http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bengalese
> Not Bengalian, or Bengalish, or Bengalic?
"Bengalic" looks correct to me (both as per English / Sanskrit grammar)
cycle <-> cyclic ; Bengal <-> Bengalic
Sanskrit: dharma <-> dharmic ; karna <-> karmic ; abeg <-> abegic etc
In Sanskrit though I do not use Bengal but use Banga, thus, Bangic
looks okay ...
So what do we do with all these names?
Can't we ask Mark to use a lottery to pick one and go from there? ...
Thanks,
Tulasi
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:04:06 -0600
Subject: Re: Bengali Script
To: Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org>
Cc: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>
Tulasi <tulasird at gmail dot com> wrote:
>> It might be appropriate, if some groups prefer "Bangla" as the
>> English name, to submit a request to the ISO 639 authorities to have
>> this added as an additional name (not a name change).
>
> Don't you think it is good idea to first see what the two standards
> say?
>
> One standard comes from Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and the other
> from West Bengal Government (WBG).
That isn't how the ISO 639 registration authorities work. They aren't
consortia of representatives from government and industry, like the
Unicode Consortium. The ISO 639-2/RA is the U.S. Library of Congress
and the ISO 639-3/RA is SIL International, a non-profit organization
specializing in language development.
> Why don't we ask both GOB and WBG to send the list letters/symbols
> including cascaded conjuncts as per each standard?
(switching away briefly from the name of the language)
You can certainly do this if you like. I suppose you expect the two
lists to differ in some way from each other, or from Section 9.2 of The
Unicode Standard, Version 5.2. I'm not sure what this exercise is meant
to accomplish, but then that is becoming a recurring theme, isn't it?
> I think each standard "letters/symbols including cascaded conjuncts"
> will fit into A4 JPG image.
Whatever that means.
> Though it was unintentional, as per link <
> http://loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php > it looks like
> "Bangladeshi" is correct in comparison to "Bangla".
>
> Bihar --> Bihari
> Himachal --> Himachali
> Western Pahar --> Western Pahari
> Nepal --> Nepali
>
> So,
> Bangladesh --> Bangladeshi
> West Bengal --> West Bengali
> both are correct.
If English were Esperanto, with perfectly regularized suffixes, this
logic might work. However:
England --> English
France --> French
Germany --> German
Netherlands --> Dutch
Uh, no.
> I think "Bengalese" is English name.
Really.
> Japan --> Japanese
> Canton --> Cantonese
> Chin --> Chinese
[!]
> Sinhal --> Sinhalese
>
> So,
> Begal --> Bengalese
Not Bengalian, or Bengalish, or Bengalic?
<plonk />
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2010 - 17:54:14 CDT