From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2008 - 16:59:15 CST
David Weinberg,
> 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.
http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ar.pdf
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.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 17:01:54 CST