acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[CE Whitehead]

I am still not sure about having a date as part of the subtag for this variant; it depends on whether it's necessary to indicate the various reforms in spelling that occurred over time (we did not do so for tarask); but if we do, what about 1959akad or [YYYYakad] ?? Or is that too strange?  (If the speakers of Belarussian are comfortable with [YYYYakad], then I am.

We do not absolutely have to tag both variants of Belarussian.  However, doing so will clear up some ambiguity: with the addition of this subtag, internet content tagged strictly [be] will be simply incompletely tagged and could be referencing either norm; that is such content will not by default be considered the 1959 reform version (which it may not be; if may be incompletely tagged [be-tarask] content); also, if we are interested in indicating the various shifts in spelling that occurred at the different dates of the various reforms then a subtag for this variant would be very useful.



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



Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Wed Aug 27 17:13:58 CEST 2008


On 26 Aug 2008, at 11:59, Yury Tarasievich wrote:

> Michael Everson wrote:
>> But what do you do about automated spell-checking?
>
> About nothing. There are 3rd party module for MS Word and some sort of
> aspell dictionary, usable in linux -- both not worth much, I hear.

Well, that problem's nothing new. But then I can't even get an en-GB-
oed spell-check dictionary. When I can, I use a Canadian one, since
that's closest.

My point is that if you had a spell-check dictionary for the Academy
orthography, would you want it to be the 1959 spelling? The 1985
spelling? The 2008 spelling? And what happens when in 2022 they adopt
a modified Taraskievica and *that* becomes the "Academy" spelling?

That's why I favour YYYYacad.

>>>> 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.)
>>
>> Yes, I was trying to ask "How do you say that in Belarusian?"
>
> It's "Інстытут мовазна╝ства
> (Нацыянальнай) Акадэміі навук
> Беларусі".
> Right now it's reorganised as an Institute of language and literarure
> ("Інстытут мовы і літаратуры..."), actually.
> Their don't seem to have
> any official site worth to talk of. Have a look starting at www.ac.by
> (Academy's site).

I had been wondering whether something like movakad would do, but I
prefer YYYYacad.

Michael Everson *  http://www.evertype.com

YYYYacad is o.k. with me; we have 1694acad though (for academie francaise; hope this will not result in confusion)

There is also rfrm (don't like that), inst (don't like that).

I am still not sure about having a date as part of the subtag for this variant; it depends on whether it's necessary to indicate the various reforms in spelling that occurred over time (we did not do so for tarask); but if we do, what about 1959akad or [YYYYakad] ?? Or is that too strange?  (If the speakers of Belarussian are comfortable with [YYYYakad], then I am.



--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at hotmail.com