Michael Everson everson at
Tue Sep 23 19:14:38 CEST 2008

Let me put it another way.

This has gone round and round and round and I find that the string  
"1959acad" correctly and adequately describes the non-Taraskievičian  
orthography (including whatever minor differenced there may be between  
the 1933/1959/1985 versions). I find that "acade" and "academ" and  
"akademik" are contentious and unsuitable. I don't intend to approve a  
generic institutional tag, based on the very sensible precedent we  
have with the Académie Française.

I have been unconvinced by the arguments against "1959acad" and  
convinced by the arguments for it. So I would like to approve  
"1959acad" without further discussion. I don't believe that it will  
cause problems in the future. Either the eventual 2010 orthography  
will be able to be subsumed under this (as 1985 and 1933 are) or it  
will require a subtag of its own.


On 23 Sep 2008, at 17:36, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> “approve”?
> The only people, as far as I can discern, who need to indicate  
> approval here are the original requesters. If they don’t agree with  
> your changes and you approve this request, they would be within  
> their rights to appeal (especially since their names are on it).  
> Others may signal support or lack of support for a given request,  
> including this one, which may be used as evidence of consensus by  
> the reviewer in deciding to approve or reject it.
> Addison
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at 
> ] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:37 AM
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
> 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 *

Michael Everson *

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

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list