Proposed new variant subtag: pre1917

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, Avram, all!
Avram Lyon ajlyon at ucla.edu 
Sat Sep 18 17:08:54 CEST 2010 
 
> 2010/9/17 Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
>> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>>> Also, if the name of the second is yet undecided my preference is for
>>> [ru1918].
>>
>> Avram had originally mentioned (September 8) that this variant could be
>> used for 'orv' as well as 'ru'.  Actually I'm surprised this prefix
>> hasn't shown up on any of the registration forms for either subtag.
> The possible wider extent of the luna1918 subtag makes me
> uncomfortable with ru1918. In addition to 'orv', I think that there
> may also be implications for some minority language that had already
> used the Cyrillic script before 1918 and the spelling of Russian loan
> words in those languages-- specifically, I'm thinking of Chuvash, but
> there are probably other examples among the Siberian languages.
You are more expert than I am; I was just looking for an accessible name but if orv is more useful, then the issue would be the prefixes (which as I understand things, can always be added later; you can always add prefixes but not subtract . . . )
> As for the content of the prefix field in the registration form, I
> thought that it specified the expected prefix, but that it didn't
> preclude the meaningful use of the subtag with other nonspecified
> prefixes for which the subtag would properly apply. If this is the
> case, then I don't really think that the reprinting and orthographic
> modernization of Old Russian (orv) texts is enough of a corpus of
I would include [orv] as a prefix; but of course, as I understand things, [orv] can always be added later as a prefix. 
Doug has also responded on this issue

Best,
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
> taggable texts to justify adding 'orv' to the prefix field. If I'm
> misunderstanding the purpose of the prefix field, please let me know
> and I will adjust the subtag requests accordingly.
> Best wishes,
> Avram