Michael Everson everson at
Tue Sep 23 15:37:11 CEST 2008

I agree completely with Yury here. I am convinced that 1959acad is the  
most suitable and appropriate subtag. I urge you all to approve the  
compromise registration I put forward today.

On 23 Sep 2008, at 12:14, Yury Tarasievich wrote:

> Dear Mark and all protesters on the lines of:
>> The sources cited by Yury are NOT restricted to 1959, and 1959 should
>> not be part of the subtag.
> You are showing somewhat insufficient acquantaince with the subject  
> at hand.
> The sources cited by me all refer to the *same* specific literary  
> norm,
> which was actually decreed on May 11, 1957 (!) as "changes and
> corrections" to the previous norm, was introduced into the official  
> use
> on January 1, 1958 and into the schooling on September 1, 1958.  
> However,
> the first rulebook was published in 1959, and so the norm is popularly
> and overwhelmingly associated with the year 1959. The academic  
> editions
> of the grammar came out later, and both those and the vocabularies are
> re-published periodically in the new editions. The works on phonology
> also relate to the literary norm discussed here, which is signified  
> both
> by the titles and by the introductions.
> Now, it is precisely the "1959 norm" (or "1959 grammar" or "1959
> orthography"), as defined in quoted references, which is the actually
> obliging, academic literary norm in the official use in Belarus in  
> 2008
> CE etc. etc. Only when (if) the changes decreed in 2008 become
> officially part of the literary norm, then there will be possibly the
> need of the 2010acad tag, and of referring to the "2010 norm" etc.
> I wonder how this is so confusing. All these troubles with the
> supposedly "unacceptional" nature of the 1959 part of the tag seem  
> to be
> somewhat imaginary. As seen by me, of course.
> -Yury
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

Michael Everson *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list