[Rgyalrong] Can we all decide

[Hiroyuki Suzuki]

Dear all,

Thank you Jesse for proposing this discussion.
In my opinion, we do not need to standardise writing. All the spellings,
rGyalrong (my preference), Gyalrong, and Rgyalrong (I never agree with
this), work
well if people understand each term denoting the same language.
So, strictly speaking, I am against deciding a term/spelling by a vote.
This democratic way would not help us, but would separate us.
Instead, I would like to propose that a document be drawn up in which
all varieties
of spelling to denote the same language, and urge people to cite the document---
this would guarantee the identification of the language.
The document can includes all the spellings (rGyalrong, Gyalrong, and Rgyalrong
among others; I have also seen Gyarong, Gyälrong, rGyal-rong, etc.) and
be signed/co-authored by those who agree with this.
We know some reference works such as Ethnologue and Glottolog; however,
many of us could not be satisfied with their selecting entries, language names,
and descriptions. So we can prepare and deposit another document to state
how the spelling issue exists.

Best,
Hiroyuki


2023-03-30 9:53 GMT+09:00, Jesse P. Gates <stauskad at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Sami and 葉庭英 for joining the discussion. Again, can we all decide on
> something? I think the two most popular usages right now are Rgyalrong and
> Gyalrong (but I do tend to favor Gyalrong for the aforementioned reasons).
> I really couldn't care less what we decide, we just need to decide and go
> for it! In the end, I'm also OK with us having multiple spellings, but it
> would strengthen our field if we decide on one spelling and flood the
> literature with just one spelling. Comparative Sino-Tibetanists and
> typologists will thank us, making it easier to search for and cite your
> papers. So please, voice your opinion here. I would particularly like to
> hear from Gong Xun, Zhang Shuya, Lai Yunfan, Guillaume Jacques, Jackson
> Sun, Tian Qianzi, Herbert Tunzhi, Lin Youjing, Mathieu Beaudouin, and
> others who have written extensively on these languages. We could even cast
> votes.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:15 AM Sami Honkasalo <samihonkasalo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I recommend Gyalrong. Language names are also loanwords, and they should
>> be adjusted. There is no reason to follow Tibetan spelling in English.
>> Like
>> Jesse, I don't hold a strong opinion on this.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Sami
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:36 PM 葉庭英 <r00222077 at ntu.edu.tw> wrote:
>>
>>> Good day, Jesse,
>>>
>>>         I recall Guillaume recommended drop the 前加字r-, and I see you use
>>> Gyalrong in your work. But, I guess you'll have to shout out to sell it
>>> beyond this circle
>>>
>>> > Jesse P. Gates <stauskad at gmail.com> 於 2023年2月10日 上午9:02 寫道：
>>> >
>>> > Can we all decide how we want to write Rgyalrong, Gyalrong, rGyalrong,
>>> etc? I'm beyond having a personal opinion on this, but I think we could
>>> all
>>> benefit from conformity on this matter. I say take a vote!
>>> >
>>> > Jesse
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Rgyalrong mailing list
>>> > Rgyalrong at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rgyalrong
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rgyalrong mailing list
>>> Rgyalrong at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rgyalrong
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>
> *Jesse P. Gates, PhD*Nankai University, School of Literature 南开大学文学院
> https://nankai.academia.edu/JesseGates
>