Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at
Thu Aug 28 08:00:37 CEST 2008

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Yury Tarasievich <yury dot tarasievich at gmail dot com> wrote:
>>> What is vague about 'tarask'?  Is there more than one orthography 
>>> commonly known as "Taraskievica"?
>> So you missed this part. Yes, at least two: 2005 (Viachorka's project 
>> with changed alphabet) and not-2005. And "not-2005" may be partitioned 
>> at least once: "pre-1933 and direct derivatives" and the modern 
>> re-creations which are defined (by academic Padluzhny) as a 
>> "contamination (ling.) of academic lit. norm with some of the 
>> pre-reform features".
> Are the variations so different that it would be inappropriate to use 
> one subtag to refer to all of them?  What about the different versions 
> of the Academy orthography?

1959 and 2008 differ in that the latter simplifies and "orthogonalises" 
several rules. However, some (borrowed) words would start to look 
somewhat different in their finales, therefore it's maybe wise to 
introduce two subtags. 1985, as I said, may be ignored -- too minor.

I wouldn't know what's, in Registry's opinion, appropriate w/r to the 
subdivisions of "-tarask" subtag.
I see, however, that such subdivisions are seen here as appropriate w/r 
to the "-academy" subtag.
*Unnecessary* complication of matters, if you ask me, but that's not my 

> The important taggable difference seems to be between the Academy and 
> Taraskievica orthographies, not between sub-varieties of either.

Obviously, but see above.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list