Subject: Re: bug#55869: [PATCH] Add support for the Lepcha script

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 16:04:43 +0530

I am sorry, I do not understand the question, I have not used a
transliterated name for the Lepcha script.

If you are asking whether to use ᰛᰩᰵ (Róng) or ᰛᰩᰵᰛᰧᰵᰶ (Róng-ríng), I think
both are fine.

Looking around for videos of native speakers I found these:
1. https://youtu.be/syNb4rXDRjI?t=26 Here at 26 sec, Mr. PT Lepcha uses
"Rong Mingjot" for "Rong Alphabet" (atleast AFAICT, because I could not
find "Mingjot" in a dictionary (
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Dictionary_of_the_Lepcha-language_%28IA_cu31924023194198%29.pdf
))

2. https://youtu.be/fHlvOhyN7Tg?t=22 Here again at 22 sec, "Rong Mingjot"
is used.

3. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ERmC9G1FlNk Here Eliyas uses both Róng
(in native script) and Róng-ríng (in lepcha script).

The omniglot website also describes other name for this script:

> The Lepcha script is known as ᰀᰂ (kakha - the first two letters), ᰇᰨᰕᰧᰵᰶ
> (chomíng - "written letters") or ᰕᰧᰵᰶᰙᰳ (míngzât - "treasure of letters").
>

शनि, 11 जून 2022, 3:30 pm को Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> ने लिखा:

> > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:01:44 +0530
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> >
> > >Can you tell where did you take this name of the script (or is it >the
> language)?  Both Wikipedia and the
> > Omniglot pages show >names that look differently and are written with
> different >codepoints.
> >
> > I copied the name from the infobox in the Wikipedia page for the Lepcha
> script
> > (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepcha_script) it says "Rong" which is
> one of the native name of the script,
> > one other name is "Rong Ring"  which is written in the image of the
> Wikipedia infobox and also in the
> > omniglot website (https://omniglot.com/writing/lepcha.htm) both are
> correct.
> > (Atleast according to these websites)
>
> The question is: what should we use?  Maybe using what is actually
> shown (as opposed to transliterated) is better?
>