Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian
thorgeirholm at yahoo.no
Wed Dec 30 12:20:09 CET 2009
<hermer Yury Tarasievich frå 30.12.2009 09:04>
> Guys, if you insist on bringing Belarusian into
> it, then at least do it on the correct premises.
> You'll avoid unclever analogies so.
Well, with what little knowledge I have, I try and make the best out of
it. The information you provide here makes the analogy seem very fitting.
> 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.
This is exactly the case in 'nn', too. Two divergent literary norms,
'nn-hognorsk' (proposed) and "nn-official" (default), with a history
from Aasen's codification in 1848/1864/1873.
> The taraskevic variant, which
> calls back to the pre-1933 state of the thing,
> *"restores"* certain orthographical, but also
> grammatical, orthoepical and lexical conventions
This is exactly the case with 'nn-hognorsk' too, with respect to the
pre-1938 official state, though "restores" is maybe not the best word
for a continuous tradition.
> 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"
This is exactly the case with "nn-official" from 1938: new conventions
makes it look more like 'nb', and then we have the same debate whether
this is purely assimilation or a representation of the true "folk
foundation", though the *actual situation* behind these arguments may be
totally different in the case of 'nn' and 'be'.
> Anyway be- tags denote a fork in a stem, not two
> stems, as in case of Norwegian, as far as I
> understand it.
'be' is analogical to 'nn', not to the macro 'no'.
> 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).
It will be somewhat different in 'nn', as -hognorsk is the more
nitpicked. The official 'nn' being more like an umbrella is a good
motivation for avoiding a separate "-official" tag.
By the way, what kind of tags would you apply to the Trasianka varieties?
More information about the Ietf-languages