Thanks, Reshat,<br>I can go with 1926;<br>there are many more details that you've gathered here than I had in my notes; my only note about 1929 is I found something of a reference (but not a first hand one) that the use of the new orthography became compulsary this year, perhaps even the new orthography became compulsary for all the languages concerned, but I'm not sure on the latter; see:<br><br>http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/pubs/clsl/clsl123.pdf<br><br>"By<br>1929 use of the NTA effectively became compulsory and the import of typographical material in<br>Arabic was forbidden " <br><br>That's all I have.<br><br>--C. E. Whitehead<br>cewcathar@yahoo.com<br><br><b><i>"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)" <tatar.iqtelif.i18n@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1<br><br>Michael Everson yazmış:<br>> At 12:48 -0700 2007-03-24,
Peter Constable wrote:<br>>> Content-Language: en-US<br>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>>><br>>> Somebody, please, just pick a date and get on with it. We've got to be<br>>> able to live with a bit of ambiguity in our lives.<br>> <br>> Is the tag intended for general use for all these languages? In that<br>> case 1929 would do if we don't want to specify individual dictionaries<br>> for these.<br>> <br>> This is still messy, and why is Mr Whitehead speaking for Reshat?<br>> <br>> I guess we are getting closer to consensus.<br>I don't think 1929 is more valid that 1926 or 1927, and i think 1926 or<br>1927, in that order, are better dates. They might have started burning<br>books in Arabic script in 1929, and sped up the process, but unless<br>somebody shows a reference to substantiate 1929, i think it's less valid<br>than 1926 or 1927.<br><br>I spent a lot of time tracing these dates down, but this is a
summary of<br>it, from what i've found:<br><br>Turkological Conference: Baku, 1926<br><br>NTA Committee Plena: Baku, 1927 -> NTA<br> Uzbekistan (must be Tashkent), 1928 (January)<br> Qazan, 1928 (December)<br><br>Since we are talking about dates, we have to make a judgment on which<br>one is more significant. In 1926 a decision was made by fairly<br>representative body to make a switch to Latin alphabet. In 1927, the<br>alphabet was agreed on<br>(http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/textes/GRANDE-34/Grande34.html), although<br>disputes mainly on capital letters continued until the 3rd plenum<br>(Language and Power in the Creation of the Ussr, 1917-1953, p. 131). 2nd<br>and 3rd plena were mostly follow-up and polishing meetings, despite the<br>formality-wise significance of capital letters decision.<br><br>Take July 4th as an independence day for the U.S. Was there independence<br>on July 4th 1776? As far as i know there was little more than burnt<br>houses,
and a lot of conflict, although i'm not that good on history of<br>those events. From what i'm reading, by the end 1776 major cities were<br>dis-independent, if that's a word.<br><br>Based on this analogy, i think the date needs to be 1926 or 1927. I<br>favor 1926, because it was made by a more representative body, and that<br>event stands out in comparison to everything else: just like the signing<br>of the declaration in the example above. I realize that it's not the<br>same, because in fact a lot of this was coming down from Moscow, and<br>there might be brow-opening documents on a lot of specifics around those<br>events, and the strings that were pulled, and possible undisclosed<br>intentions, but we won't see them for at least 500 years, so we have to<br>go off of what we have access to.<br><br>If you don't agree w/ 1926, my second and last choice is 1927, but i<br>really lean towards 1926, and i hope 07/04/1776 example is illustrative<br>in that
regard.<br><br>Needless to say, taskent1928, or qazan1928 wouldn't qualify as variant<br>names (>8). I mentioned earlier these choices floating in my head:<br>1. baku1926<br>2. nta1926<br>3. bir1926 ("bir" being an abbreviation like "uni")<br>4. uni1926<br><br>I lean towards the 1. choice because:<br>a. baku is for the most part language neutral, unlike nta, or uni.<br>b. baku is also more descriptive than bir, which carries some weight for<br>a historical variant, and might make it easier to interpret.<br><br>Other points:<br>i. nta, or unta, while being perhaps easier identifiable in English, are<br>abbreviations in a foreign language for all of the languages involved.<br>For some empathy effect, imaging having a variant tag of janalif, or<br>bjte, for your own language, the latter based on abbreviation for most<br>Turkic languages for UNTA. I realize English is the most international<br>language, but it doesn't add oddity to use and English abbreviation for<br>an
alphabet variant for Turkic languages.<br>ii. bir beats uni any day for me, for the same reason.<br><br>In short, my first two choıces are:<br>baku1926<br>baku1927<br>.<br><br>After that, it's all up in the air, although if you have some better<br>info, shoot.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Reşat.<br><br></blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1><a href="
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html">Sucker-punch spam</a> with award-winning protection.<br> Try the <a href="
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html">free Yahoo! Mail Beta.</a>