Subject: Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again (a UNGEGN transliteration)

From: CE Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:46:31 -0400

Hi.
From: "Martin J. DÃrst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:45:20 +0900

> On 2011/07/19 21:00, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:>>19.07.2011 02:36, Mark Davis â wrote:>>> It may also require the identification of the specific conventions used>>> by transformation, such as the rules used by a UNGEGN transliteration.>>> How does that look?>> Looks great. As a minor issue, âa UNGEGN transliterationâ is perhaps not>> an optimal example, as the abbreviation is less widely known than many>> names of transliteration schemes (like Hepburn and pinyin), but an>> example helps to clarify the point> While we are looking at this phrase ("a UNGEGN transliteration"), I > want to point out that it was confusing for me because it suggests that > there are more than one UNGEGN transliteration for a given ordered> language pair. If that's the case, how is the actually used> transliteration identified? If it's not the case, then I suggest changing> to "the corresponding UNGEGN transliteration" (or something similar).> Regards,    Martin.
Introduction, paragraph 5, has an example; would it be enough to point to it?

 | Language Tag                       | Description                  |   +------------------------------------+------------------------------+
   | und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007 | the content is in Cyrillic,  |
   |                                                            | transformed from Latn,       |
   |                                                            | according to a UNGEGN        |
   |                                                            | specification dated 2007.
Best,
--C. E. [email-masked]