Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Thorgeir Holm thorgeirholm at
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.

> 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.

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 mailing list