LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: USSR Latin (ussrlatn)

["Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank Ellermann yazmış:
> =?UTF-8?B?IlJlc2hhdCBTYWJpcSAoUmXFn2F0KSI=?= wrote:
> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Turkic_alphabet
>> The reference in this article is informative, however the word Uniform
>> used in this article is an inaccurate translation. Other sources do not
>> use Uniform. Unified is used in several sources in various languages.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/template:sofixit
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.... ;-)
I'll consider that in the future, but i have higher priority things on
my TODO list at the moment.
> 
>> think about a good variant name.
> 
> Maybe add "1930", "193x", "193xlatn", or similar to your list, same idea
> as "1901" for a historical German orthography.
Yes, this is an option as well, although in that case it appears it
would be less representative of the unified fashion in which all this
was enforced.
Based on wikipedia, and the book i referenced before i'm seeing the
following years in which apparently the local laws/resolutions were
accepted to officialize the (localized) unified alphabet:
1927:	tt, kz, uz
1928:	ky, kaa, crh
1929: 	az, tk
1930:	ba
I think it's actually quite likely that some of this variation is due to
inaccurate years being referenced. Given how communists changed
alphabets as if they were gloves, i don't think they'd let a language be
in the officialization stage for 2-3 years. By then they'd probably
start thinking about the next alphabet.
Of course here, appending latn to the year, as Frank suggested also
appears to be applicable, because otherwise it could be confused with
modified Arabic, which apparently didn't disappear in a single day or
year (it may have disappeared from official publications in a year, but
there definitely could still be official documents or unofficial
publications around), just like probably standard Arabic orthography
didn't disappear despite it being done away with around 1920.

On the other hand, if ussrlatn or an equivalent was used, a second year
variant could still be applicable. For Uzbek, for instance, it could be
used in ussrlatn-1934, as opposed to ussrlatn-1927.

If this year-based representation is chosen, however, for the Tatar
language specifically i would use janalif instead of 1927, because every
interested user would know what janalif was, whereas 1927, or 1927latn
may not be as self-descriptive.

P.S. Finally, at least as far as Turkic languages of that time frame go,
it appears the translation of New Alphabet (Uzbek: Yängi Älifbe (as
spelled Fierman's book), Tatar: Yaŋa Əlifba (popularly abbreviated as
Yaŋalif)) is descriptive of how this alphabet was usually referred to.
However, newalpha as a variant name wouldn't be descriptive, cause it's
really old by now. For Tatar language, janalif however, would be
descriptive, because it became somewhat of an old brand name.

Thanks.

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFRQTyO75ytyYoOa8RAg7wAJ0XpTBz3QpwV+WjfwFU781LwHYEbgCgn52b
jyi5DTsASizgb/uoHqUnSFY=
=WP0C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----