Request to add Makassarese in Translatewiki

Google Gboard and Ethnologue say that the name of the language is "Mangkasara’", with an apostrophe in the end.

Are there any other sources that call it "Mangkasarak", with a "k" in the end?

I also agree, but the apostrophe represents a final glottal stop (which is never written when using the Bugis or old Makassar script). In the Latin script, that apostrophe is prefered, but some may still use a final 'k', which is an approximation of that glottal stop (which is not always pronounced, so the apostrophe is more acurate for spoken dialects that avoid it, as it is not really in the phonology).

Some won't like the ASCII apostrophe in some cnotexts where it is restricted, and the prefered curly apostrophe may not be easily typed no loacl keyboards. So the final k is an alternative. Things would be better with better support of that apostrophe on keyboard layouts.

We have identifical problems with Polynesian languages (depending on the region, that typical Polynesian consonants has severeal representations, different between what is use in Hawaii, French Polenesia or New Zealand, and also varying depending on dialects). The same occurs with Arabic used in Northern Africa or in Europe (but not alwyas preserving the same consonant distictions or confusing them in the orthography, even though they are clearly distinguished in the Arabic script and in the "standard" phonology of Arabic).

So all that is a matter or orthographic convention for Latin (and given that there's no Academic source to fix it, it's the user communities that decide what is best for them to support in their local community, but not necessarily by consulting all other users in other local dialects or living elsewhere).

In Makassar language, the glottal sound greatly affect the meaning, for example

/pepe/ = mute
/pepeɁ/ = fire
/balla/ = layur
/ballaɁ/ = house

so, the glottal stop always be pronounced

Some Makassarese linguists agree to use "k" to represent the glottal stop because the sound only exists at the end. Most of the Makassar language learning modules at the school level use the Indonesian based system which was initiated in 1975 which was held at seminars and workshops on standardizing the writing of regional languages in Ujungpandang (now Makassar).

Writing apostrophes for glottal stops causes many errors in writing, sometimes they are not even written (even though there are glottal stops in them). Examples of baji pamai /bajiɁ paɁmaiɁ/, Jeneponto /jeɁneɁponto/, etc.

Asis Nojeng, a Makassar language expert and lecturer, believes that apostrophes are not letters but punctuation marks. source

In this speeling system, apostrophe to mark ʻmissingʼ (elided) letters in verb prefixes and encliticised demonstratives, e.g:
iami anjo = iami'njo
iami anne = iami'nne

Glottal stop in Makassare is the same compare as -k in Indonesian
batuk "cough" dan batu "stone"
Likewise in Makassar language
pepek "fire" and pepe "mute"

Most books from the Ministry of Education and Culture also use this spelling. For example:

For this reason I use the standard 1975 spelling.

This is for example Makassar grammar Structure of Makassar language Makassar Dictionary Pantun Makassar Makassar Poems Morphology and Syntax in Makassarese

Most of the learning modules in schools use this spelling Pappilajarang Basa Magkasarak Pappilajarang Basa Mangkasarak

I wonder if with the Bugis or old Makassar Script, representing the final glottal may be possible using the sign for the letter 'ka' (with its final a/schwa normally implied), with an additional diacritic to mark its elision). This could be the sign of an evolution of the language.

For example in the Bugis script you can change a 'ka' (two slanted lines on top of each other) into a 'kə' by adding the vowel diacritic for 'ə' (schwa). Ususally that schwa is normally pronounced as a true vowel, but there could be conventions to no pronounce it at end of words so the elision is implicit. If this is not true for the modern language, a variant of the 'ə' may eventually be used to mark its elision (similar to "halant"/"virama" in Indic scripts, which usually, but not always is represented by a dot added below the cluster).

In Bugis, the dot below is already used to make the diacritic changing the implicit 'a' into a vowel 'u', but may be the two diacritics for 'ə' (looking like an accent above the letter) and for 'u' (dot below the letter) could have been combined, if clusters like 'kəu' or 'kuə' are not used (at least at end of words), and could have been appropriate to mark a final glottal.

The same remark applies to the Old Makassar script. But as it is no longer used in the modern language, we would need to find evidences: did they wrote a plain 'ka' letter or a 'kə' cluster, or nothing at all?

Now for Latin, it is a recent introduction. Initiators of the romanisation of the language may have hesitated to the sign(s) to use for the final glottal. This may be now more a concern if glottals can also occur and be distinctive in the middle, or at start of words (possibly because of phonetic evolutions of the languages, where some initial 'k' would no longer be pronounced, but not the vowel following; or for other cases where more complex vowel clusters were introduced where that 'k' was elided and replaced by a glottal sign, possibly mute).

All this is typical of Indic abugidas scripts (like Bugis and Old Makassar) even if the Latin alphabet is foreign to those conventions and now just separates most vowels and consonnants (sometimes by using digrams containing a consonnant for some vowels, like 'on', otherwise using diacritics like 'õ'). But the representation of glottal-like consonants has always been a debate between "latinists" (some even prefering to use a less common consonnants like 'q').

As long as there's no clear academic source fixing the orthographic rule for Latin, you may find variants! So the ISO 639 standard, CLDR for now use an apostrophe (a curly one, not the ASCII apostrophe-quote), but some people may have difficulty with it on their keyboards.

Some languages also have multiple glottal-like consonnants (this is the case for example of Polynesian languages, or Arabic, whose romanization also knows multiple variants). This concerns as well the transcription to other alphabetic systems (e.g. Cyrillic or Greek) or syllabic systems. And finally history will fix the usage (but sometimes several standards depending on the region of use and what is perceived as the major dialect for the phonalisation of the language... up to the point that languages then split in separate branches).

I'm confused... Here, you are asking for the name "Mangkasarak". But on the Incubator, you changed the title to "Mangkasaraʼ".

Online, I can see both names. So what should be done?

I just conform to the ISO 639 CLDR standard

but I can return it back to the 1975 standard spelling version if that spelling is more acceptable on wikipedia, If possible

I thought, The 1975 spelling doesn't seem very accepted on wikipedia

But, Makassarese 1975 spelling system still widely used in book and taught in school

You don't have to conform to CLDR if it's wrong. CLDR has many mistakes, and it's difficult to correct them in their system for technical reasons. Also, ISO 639 is separate from CLDR, and CLDR doesn't even have a name for Makassarese in Makassarese: https://unicode-org.github.io/cldr-staging/charts/latest/by_type/locale_display_names.languages__k-n_.html . If you refer to the name in Ethnologue, then it's also not binding—I often use it as an easily available source, but not necessarily as the final truth. I usually try to cross-check with other sources.

I don't strongly care about which of the two names to use here. Evidently, both Mangkasarak and Mangkasara’ are used in publications, so neither is wrong. If the people who are involved in writing the Wikipedia in this language prefer Mangkasarak, I will go for that, because I don't want to block this request.

I just hope that this is also comfortable for the general public of this languages' speakers. Be ready to change it some day if other writers or readers bring up strong arguments for Mangkasara’.