Variant subtag proposal: Hgnorsk variety of Norwegian

[Yury Tarasievich]

CE Whitehead wrote:
...
> (Regarding the analogy between the two orthographies for belarussian and 
> the 'hognorsk' and (post 1938?) variety of [nn],
> it's apt I guess if all that is at stake in Norwegian is orthography 
> (which to my understanding was what was at stake in Belarussian???)  But 
> in any case, I think the issue is resolved as no second variant subtag 
> is recommended for post-1938 [nn].)

Guys, if you insist on bringing Belarusian into 
it, then at least do it on the correct premises. 
You'll avoid unclever analogies so. The 
Belarusian academic and taraskevic variants 
refer to the divergent *literary* *norms*, which 
both are derived from the newly constructed 
literary norm based on a certain synthesis of 
the two main dialectal groups, which was formed 
in the beg. of the 20th cent. and *codified* in 
the 1918-1920s. The taraskevic variant, which 
calls back to the pre-1933 state of the thing, 
*"restores"* certain orthographical, but also 
grammatical, orthoepical and lexical conventions 
-- all of which have Polish origin or are, 
arguably, Polish-influenced. The academic 
variant is based on the same synthetised folk 
foundation but with the certain orthographical 
etc. conventions changed in 1933, which makes it 
superficially "more like Russian" (and 
incidentally unlike Polish), but also, arguably, 
more consistent with both the pre-20th cent. 
Belarusian (Old Belarusian) literary tradition 
and with the real folk usus (per works of 
Padluzhny, Zhurawski and others). My long-shot 
prediction is we'll see another language 
emerging from the taraskevic norm, and its name 
will not have -rusian in it.

Anyway be- tags denote a fork in a stem, not two 
stems, as in case of Norwegian, as far as I 
understand it. And the processing of the be- 
tags was done differently, too. The -1959acad 
was sort of nitpicked and -tarask is, 
effectively, an umbrella tag (which, possibly, 
is what's really needed, however).

-Yury