mahaniok at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 16:51:56 CEST 2008
sorry, one more clarification: both of those are just /spellings/, and
both of them can be written either Cyrillics or Latin; so both of
those are script-agnostic by default; just, by matter of fact, they
are overwhelmingly written in Cyrillic.
be-Cyrl-akadem, be-Cyrl-tarask, be-Latn-akadem, be-Latn-tarask are all
possible, though not necessary today, I believe.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Ihar Mahaniok <mahaniok at gmail.com> wrote:
> no, Doug,
> both those are Cyrillic, since both of them are "standard" way of
> writing Belarusian.
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> We have three outstanding registration requests, one for the "Academy"
>>> romanization of Belarusian (as distinct from Taraskievica), one for
>>> Pinyin (however that is defined), and one for Wade-Giles.
>> Regarding Belarusian, for "romanization" please read "Latin-script
>> orthography." I apologize for the error but trust everyone knew what I
>> I got a private response:
>>> IIUC both Taraskievica and "Academy" are Cyrillic orthographies for
>>> Belarusian, not Latin orthographies, thus not romanisations.
>> Actually these are Latin orthographies; the "standard" way of writing
>> Belarusian is in Cyrillic.
>> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages