gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue May 1 11:03:48 CEST 2007
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.
On 5/1/07, Jaska Zedlik <sub at zedlik.com> wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
> LA> If I understand this right, there was a book by Mr. Taraskievich
> LA> in 1918, published in its 5th edition in 1929, then an official
> LA> government reform in 1933 and one more in 1959. Then in 2005 a
> LA> new book that connects back to 1929. We now have 5 different
> LA> years that each could identify a slightly different version of the
> LA> language, but these five can be grouped into two major branches:
> LA> the 1933-1959 version that is today the official version in the
> LA> republic of Belarus and the 1918-1929-2005 version now to be
> LA> registered as "be-tarask".
> Yes, you are right. But really there are/were not only 5 versions
> but the majority of them can be put to one of these 2 branches.
> >>From a philosophical standpoint, you need names for things only to
> LA> tell them apart. If there was no difference between apples and
> LA> pears, we could just call it "fruit" and that would be it. It
> LA> follows that if there is a difference and you need a word for
> LA> "apples", then you also need a word for "pears".
> Probably. But in Belarusian if somebody eats apples, he or she doesn't
> eat pears and vice versa. This means if somebody uses Taraskievica,
> he usually don't want to know how to tag Narkamauka, and if somebody
> writes in Narkamauka he usualy don't want to deal with Taraskievica.
> LA> It is peculiar (to me) already that "be-tarask" is registered
> LA> without also registering a subtag for the other, official version
> LA> of Belarusian. Suppose I start up my word processor and activate
> LA> the spelling correction. Which dictionary do I want to use?
> LA> Be-tarask or the other one that doesn't have a subtag? Is that to
> LA> be called "be" without the subtag? The only similar case I know
> LA> is de-1901 and de-1996, where both subtags were registered at the
> LA> same time.
> Yes, this is still a problem, but the first step to solve it was made
> by registering be-tarask. Now it is the turn of Narkamauka users to
> find an appropriate title for Narkamauka subtag if they need a subtag.
> But for now be-tarask means all the Taraskievica variants and
> what means "be" depends only on the autor who tagged the data. Until a
> subtag for Narkamauka doesn't exist, it is impossible to say that "be"
> without a subtag stands for some specific variant of the language.
> LA> The above post from Ihar is the first time I see that the 2005
> LA> version would be "VERY different" from the 1929 version.
> I don't really think, that they are "VERY different". The difference
> between them are mainly in non-specified then rules and in the
> orthography of foreign words, because it was not relevant in 1929. And
> this difference is certainly less than between 2005 version and the
> official orthography.
> LA> Does
> LA> that mean somebody will need to register a new subtag for the 1929
> LA> version, to tell it apart from the 2005 version?
> Initially be-tarask was intended to tag all sorts of Taraskievaca. But
> as we need one concrete book to specify the set of rules for it,
> certainly was chosen the latest as the most full and the most modern.
> I don't think that somebody will create a spellchecker for 1929
> orthography and check the books written then. This version is not in
> use now, but this data if ever can also be tagged as "be-tarask".
> Certainly for a non-user it can be quite hazy, but to compare it to
> German, only de-1901 and de-1996 exist and nobody wants a subtag to
> spellcheck some Goethe poems in original because this looks a bit
> crazy. In Belarusian it is sometuing like this.
> LA> Are there
> LA> different newspapers printed in these two sub-sub-versions of
> LA> Belarusian?
> No, all the newspapers and magazines printed in Taraskievica
> during the last 15-20 years are printed in 2005 version (or in the
> variant which is very similar to it).
> LA> In the light of this, was it perhaps a mistake to use
> LA> the name of the 1918-1929 author, Mr. Taraskievich, as the basis
> LA> for the subtag for the 2005 version of the language?
> Probably therefore 2005 version was called "Belarusian classical
> orthography" :-)
> But today this one of two branches has two titles--Taraskievica and
> classical orthography--which are usually treated equally.
> "Taraskievica" means not only the grammar published by Taraskievic
> (even his 1918 and 1929 versions are rather diffirent) but this is a
> title for the entire branch, so in the respect of the subtag title
> everything is ok.
> Jaska Zedlik
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages