Re: Bengali Script

From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2010 - 17:51:31 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Bengali Script"

    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