acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Yury Tarasievich]

Michael Everson wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2008, at 09:43, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
>
>> Michael Everson wrote:
>> ...
>>> At present I am favouring YYYYacad as we have for French, if the
>>> orthography can be pointed to a codified source.
>>
>> But such numbering would be somewhat bogus.
>> At the very least, 1959, 1985 and, now, also 2008 versions (to be
>> formally introduced in the 2010, but already used for some years in some
>> sources) are used quite interchangeably.
>
> Interchangeably? What do you do about spell-checking?
Some variation is usually just accepted -- differences are not major. 
Some of the pre-reform rules, while formally incorrect, were sort of 
"blessed", too, recently (listed as an alternatives in academic "Short 
grammar...", V.1, 2007).

> In principle 1959acad, 1985acad, and 2008acad could be quite useful in 
> such a context.
>
> "Academy" by itself is too vague, and could apply to any country. 
But "be-academy" couldn't, right? (Yes, it's the "Institute of 
Linguistics of Academy of Sciences of Belarus" which the controlling body.)

For what it's worth, the "be-tarask" is vague, too. It's supposedly 
based on the 2005 rules, but those aren't mandatory and objectively 
there exist major text corpora also in pre-1918 (uncodified), 1918/1925, 
emigrants' orthographies (lots of those), perestroika period 
orthographies (myriads of those, but basically, contamination of 
1959/1985 with some of the 1918/1925 norm).

So, I'd suggest "academy" and be done with it. Otherwise the matters 
will only get confused.

-Yury