RE: ISO 15924 update

I did not say anything about changing any formal script property in either ISO 15924 or in Unicode. Unicode script names cannot be changed, period. My comment was only about _informative_ supplementation information in ISO 15924.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: unicore-bounce2_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicore-bounce2_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Anshuman Pandey
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:51 AM
To: unicode Unicode Discussion
Cc: unicore_at_unicode.org
Subject: Re: ISO 15924 update

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2011, at 18:29, Peter Constable wrote:
>
>> Reminds me: I've heard that the official Romanized name for Oriya script in India is changing to "Odia". Should that be documented as an alternate name in ISO 15924?
>
> I wouldn't rush to do this proactively, if you're asking me. The name has been Oriya in English for 200 years. The usual scientific transliteration is oṛiā anyway, and "Odia" will never get the right pronunciation from English speakers. The letter in question is ଡ is [ɽ], which is defintely not a [d].

I agree with Michael and would go a bit further to state that the name should not be changed at all. Converting 'Oriya' to 'Odia' may lead to other requests, eg. 'Bengali' -> 'Bangla'. An annotation in the nameslist that script X is also known as Y should be an acceptable solution.

The use of 'd' for transliterating the retroflex plosive is a very common practice in India, so 'Odia' is perfectly acceptable.

Best,
Anshu
Received on Thu Jun 23 2011 - 16:19:02 CDT