Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at
Tue Aug 26 08:48:25 CEST 2008

Michael Everson wrote:
> I remember "tarask" and agree for the need for this tag. I do not like  
> "acade".

Before anything else, the tag "acade" is plain silly. If at all 
unavoidable, the "akad" would seem at least somewhat more sensible 
choice -- taking 4 letters of the Latin transliteration and representing 
the valid abbreviation of the term, also being easy in practical use.

Now, I don't quite see -- is it really *necessary* to put a subtag on 
the mainstream norm of the language, just because the diverging norm 
(be-tarask) got one? Were there any precedents? What's the target user 
group for it? Folks promoting be-tarask norm would use their grouspeak 
anyway (by the way, I see one of them in the Proposers: field). And 
"mainstream" norm users quite successfully make do without qualifiers.

Just see the trouble folks here run into when trying to invent the 
subtag for the mainstream -- if not going for the derisive *groupspeak 
invented by V. Viachorka in the 1980s* ("narkamauka", cf. (Klimov 2004), 
also try to look up S. Zaprudski's publications dated 1999), *what's 
there to describe*? It's "just there" for a long time, it's consistent 
with dialects, it's not confined to the Internet and it's not tied-in 
with any politics.

My off-the-wall suggestion would be to ask the Academy or the Belarusian 
standard bodies. Or to kill this proposal.

FWIW, the background for this is taken 99.9% verbatim from *my* CLDR 
proposal, which was addressing the mixing of the Belarusian literary 
norms in the CLDR dataset. The Description: and Proposal is "sewn on" by 
the proposer (notice the consistent use of groupspeak).


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list