LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 07:14:43 CEST 2008
Peter Constable wrote:
>> At this point I consider any of the alternatives to 1959acad
>> to be inadequate, precisely because they refer solely to an
>> institution rather than to an orthography.
> This is a fallacious argument. If you go back to Mark's original request form for "acade", submitted on 2008-8-25, I think you'll find the intent was to refer to an orthography, not an institution -- indeed, there's no reference to a particular institution:
And how do you describe an orthography, if not referring to the
rulebook, institution or decree??
The original request was completely over the board with the political
groupspeak -- in items III and IV you quote, of 5 terms/descriptions, 4
were originating from "contra-academic" community, and at least 2
(narkamauka and classical; possibly, also, taraskievica) have their
inventor in beginning of the 1990s identified as Viachorka (leader of
the BPF party and primary author of the 2005 be-tarask codification).
Cf. [Klimaw 2004] or, better yet, try to look up papers authored by S.
Zaprudski and dated by end-1990s.
More information about the Ietf-languages