[Rgyalrong] Can we all decide

Thu Mar 30 02:28:01 UTC 2023

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for the comments.
Indeed, my proposal looks overreacted; however, I believe that such a
way allows
us to use each own term in individual articles, following each preference.
That is called 'all-inclusive'. Linguists are not the only
stakeholders to decide
a glottonym.

The spelling Gyalrong is ok with me but if, as a result, we rejected
both rGyalrong
and Rgyalrong, I would hesitate to vote for Gyalrong.
I would like to reserve rGyalrong or its use in the field of Tibetology,
and some scholars do want to continue to use Rgyalrong.

I am also waiting to hear others' thought.

Best,
Hiroyuki

2023-03-30 10:47 GMT+09:00, Jesse P. Gates <stauskad at gmail.com>:
> Dear Hiroyuki,
>
> So good to hear from you and happy that you have joined the discussion.
>
> While I want to agree with you and join you in writing such a document, I'm
> wondering if this overcomplicates the issue.
>
> I don't think if we disagree it will divide us. But for those who are
> willing to agree to one term, then why not just agree? Those who feel
> strongly against the majority choice will be blessed to go with their
> conscience and not be judged (at least by me :)). All the power to
> dissenters. But the thing is, I'm just not sure how many people actually
> have a strong preference to begin with.
>
> You seem to feel strongly towards "rGyalrong" and strongly against
> "Rgyalrong." Does that mean you could be won over to "Gyalrong"?
>
> *All:*
> Again, I would love to hear your thoughts on what spelling to use
> rGyalrong/Rgyalrong/Gyalrong. I, for one, will just yield to the majority
> on this issue. I just find it annoying to not know how to write the name of
> the language subgroup that I specialize in!
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 9:20 AM Hiroyuki Suzuki <minibutasan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>
> *Jesse P. Gates, PhD*Nankai University, School of Literature 南开大学文学院
> https://nankai.academia.edu/JesseGates
>