be-tarask language subtag registration form

C Eddie Whitehead cewcathar at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 31 22:28:33 CEST 2007


Hi, all,
I think I tend to agree mostly with what Doug Ewell says at this point, but we do have to come up with a suitable name for the subtag in any case;
I think Frank in his last email suggested a reference,
I am worried about the name though because the date 1933 could be picked up by people who want to code content for other languages from the former USSR so we need something more specific.
The rest of my comments are below!

Thanks.


Doug Ewell schreef:
> Peter's option B is the best choice -- identify the political 
issues 
> so they can be discarded, then evaluate the request and accept (or 
> reject) solely on the basis of language-identification issues.
>
> I, for one, don't care if a group exists that wants its own Wiki 
page 
> and the Wiki Foundation has said no.  That's not why we register 
subtags.
>
> To me, the claims that Taraskievica should not be given a subtag 
> because it doesn't reflect the "original" orthography as claimed 
> brings to mind the disturbing debate over encoding Ol Chiki in 
> Unicode, where some opponent groups claimed the Ol Chiki script 
> encouraged non-standard and inferior grammatical usage and 
otherwise 
> threatened the integrity of the Santali nation.  This sort of 
argument 
> has no place here.  If Taraskievica is in use, and well enough 
> documented for a subtag to have meaning, it ought to have a 
subtag. 

Thanks, Doug, 
+1
I tend to agree with what you've said in essence though it would be nice to also hear a bit first about the other orthographies--because of the apparent amount of politicization of this!  But then we can go ahead an register, when we come up with a suitable name.

(I note that this has not been such an issue with the request for the subtag for the Latinized tatar and related languages!  Though we still have yet to approve that request  . . . and hopefully we will soon )

Gerard:
>Hoi,
>It all depends on the definition, this orthography is said to be 
>formalised in 2005 ..

>As long as /*all */orthographies have a tag, I am fine. Once there is a 
>code, I will add both the option in OmegaWiki for all the 
>orthographies..
>Thanks,
>    Gerard

Mark:
>In the event that any request 
>is 
>determined to have political undertones, then reject ALL requests 
>associated with the politics until such time as ALL the players in the 
>politics can come up with a unified proposal that is acceptable to ALL 
>of 
>them.

Well not quite but we do need to research whether any kind of description or subtag name would be offensive to anyone else.

"Jaska Zedlik" <sub at zedlik.com>
>In 1933 in Soviet Union was performed a Belarusian language reform.
>The orthography was changed to make Belarusian more similar to
>Russian. The use of the previous orthography (Taraskiecica) was
>forbidden. The new orthography was accepted by the decree of the
>Council of People’s Commissaries ("Narodnyja kamisary" in 
>Belarusian),
>therefore the orthography got later not neutral title "Narkamauka".
>Since that time this grammar was approwed by authorities and developed
>in Belarusian Academy of Sciences till now. In 1959 it became the most
>similar to the language which is now oficially in use.  
 
Jaska, thanks for this information; then it seems that 1933 is not the correct subtag for the 'traditional orthography' though it might be the corect subtag for the modern; for the traditional we'd need something indicating that:

the subtag is based on an orthography in use before the 1933 language reform.

(I think the above can go in the description maybe.)


My one concern with the year names for the subtags is that perhaps other people from the former Soviet areas will pick say the 1933 subtag up and use it incorrectly;
so I think we need something a bit more explicit here;
we are allowed 8 characters;
at least maybe be1933 or bel1933 (for the Soviet reform orthography)

and then be or bel something else 

and bepre1933 

for the other
 (but the problem with this second subtag is it's not really pre-1933 as it's  undergone changes; pre1933 also could create confusion as it suggests that we are registering the original pre-1933 orthography)

(I think Frank suggested a suitable reference in his last email)

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at yahoo.com


 
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070331/32e92ae0/attachment.html


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list