Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at
Sat Aug 30 19:29:02 CEST 2008

Doug Ewell wrote:
> I think the subtag for "Academy" Belarusian ought to appear at least 
> somewhat parallel with 'tarask', which has also had variations over time 
> (like many orthographies) but where we didn't feel the need to 
> incorporate a year.
> Adding the year 1959 might tend to imply that we are waiting for the 
> 2008 version to be published so we can assign it a contrasting subtag, 
> even though there seems to be little support for tagging them 
> separately.

Hardly so, as far as I understand the guidelines.

Having the year-stamp just denotes the specific, tangible, reference 
codification. Such codification may be easily identified in the case of 
the academic norm, and the 1959 is the cliche' shortcut reference to it.

Now, I'm a "strongly opinionated writer" here but don't take my word for 
it -- consult any university textbook on "Modern Belarusian language" in 
the section on norms evolvement. The academic norm is referenced as 
*the* "literary norm [with no further qualification] which is conforming 
to the ruleset introduced in 1959". That's what the "simple people" learn.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list