Hoi,<br>There is the official orthography which is "be". This is also the default for the be code. It is the "be-tarask" that has to identify itself as such. <br>Thanks,<br> Gerard<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 5/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jaska Zedlik</b> <<a href="mailto:sub@zedlik.com">sub@zedlik.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Lars Aronsson wrote:<br><br>LA> If I understand this right, there was a book by Mr. Taraskievich<br>LA> in 1918, published in its 5th edition in 1929, then an official<br>LA> government reform in 1933 and one more in 1959. Then in 2005 a
<br>LA> new book that connects back to 1929. We now have 5 different<br>LA> years that each could identify a slightly different version of the<br>LA> language, but these five can be grouped into two major branches:
<br>LA> the 1933-1959 version that is today the official version in the<br>LA> republic of Belarus and the 1918-1929-2005 version now to be<br>LA> registered as "be-tarask".<br><br>Yes, you are right. But really there are/were not only 5 versions
<br>but the majority of them can be put to one of these 2 branches.<br><br>>>From a philosophical standpoint, you need names for things only to<br>LA> tell them apart. If there was no difference between apples and
<br>LA> pears, we could just call it "fruit" and that would be it. It<br>LA> follows that if there is a difference and you need a word for<br>LA> "apples", then you also need a word for "pears".
<br><br>Probably. But in Belarusian if somebody eats apples, he or she doesn't<br>eat pears and vice versa. This means if somebody uses Taraskievica,<br>he usually don't want to know how to tag Narkamauka, and if somebody
<br>writes in Narkamauka he usualy don't want to deal with Taraskievica.<br><br>LA> It is peculiar (to me) already that "be-tarask" is registered<br>LA> without also registering a subtag for the other, official version
<br>LA> of Belarusian. Suppose I start up my word processor and activate<br>LA> the spelling correction. Which dictionary do I want to use?<br>LA> Be-tarask or the other one that doesn't have a subtag? Is that to
<br>LA> be called "be" without the subtag? The only similar case I know<br>LA> is de-1901 and de-1996, where both subtags were registered at the<br>LA> same time.<br><br>Yes, this is still a problem, but the first step to solve it was made
<br>by registering be-tarask. Now it is the turn of Narkamauka users to<br>find an appropriate title for Narkamauka subtag if they need a subtag.<br>But for now be-tarask means all the Taraskievica variants and<br>what means "be" depends only on the autor who tagged the data. Until a
<br>subtag for Narkamauka doesn't exist, it is impossible to say that "be"<br>without a subtag stands for some specific variant of the language.<br><br>LA> The above post from Ihar is the first time I see that the 2005
<br>LA> version would be "VERY different" from the 1929 version.<br><br>I don't really think, that they are "VERY different". The difference<br>between them are mainly in non-specified then rules and in the
<br>orthography of foreign words, because it was not relevant in 1929. And<br>this difference is certainly less than between 2005 version and the<br>official orthography.<br><br>LA> Does<br>LA> that mean somebody will need to register a new subtag for the 1929
<br>LA> version, to tell it apart from the 2005 version?<br><br>Initially be-tarask was intended to tag all sorts of Taraskievaca. But<br>as we need one concrete book to specify the set of rules for it,<br>certainly was chosen the latest as the most full and the most modern.
<br>I don't think that somebody will create a spellchecker for 1929<br>orthography and check the books written then. This version is not in<br>use now, but this data if ever can also be tagged as "be-tarask".
<br>Certainly for a non-user it can be quite hazy, but to compare it to<br>German, only de-1901 and de-1996 exist and nobody wants a subtag to<br>spellcheck some Goethe poems in original because this looks a bit<br>crazy. In Belarusian it is sometuing like this.
<br><br>LA> Are there<br>LA> different newspapers printed in these two sub-sub-versions of<br>LA> Belarusian?<br><br>No, all the newspapers and magazines printed in Taraskievica<br>during the last 15-20 years are printed in 2005 version (or in the
<br>variant which is very similar to it).<br><br>LA> In the light of this, was it perhaps a mistake to use<br>LA> the name of the 1918-1929 author, Mr. Taraskievich, as the basis<br>LA> for the subtag for the 2005 version of the language?
<br><br>Probably therefore 2005 version was called "Belarusian classical<br>orthography" :-)<br><br>But today this one of two branches has two titles--Taraskievica and<br>classical orthography--which are usually treated equally.
<br>"Taraskievica" means not only the grammar published by Taraskievic<br>(even his 1918 and 1929 versions are rather diffirent) but this is a<br>title for the entire branch, so in the respect of the subtag title
<br>everything is ok.<br><br>Jaska Zedlik<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br></blockquote></div><br>