Proposed new variant subtag: pre1917
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Wed Sep 15 06:52:38 CEST 2010
Thank you very much for this elaboration, indeed.
Like I said, I'm not fighting, but I still see
some faults in subtags submitted -- and in your
On 09/14/2010 10:07 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> From the standpoint of human readability, I see multiple problems with
If '1918' is too general and uninformative, why
not make it '1918new' (like, generally new)?
Possibly I'm talking from an insider's point of
view (on history), but 'pinning' this 'just' on
Shakhmatov seems misleading somewhat.
Lunacharsky's was much better known name in
connection with this reform. And even while the
year might be argued on being 1917 or 1918, the
contemporaries associated this change with other
French-revolution-like cultural changes, like
Gregorian calendar and decree time.
> First, there is no indication that the denoted variety is orthographic
Why are you saying that? Retelling the point,
the decree was 'abolishing the unnecessary
letters, with which working masses had to
struggle for centuries to get literate'. Loosely
quoting Bunin: 'I won't write in this new
orthography even if archangel Gabriel brought it
to me'. There was even novel published, named
'Orthography' and referring to the events.
> I don't have any real preference between 'petrine' and 'grazhdan' and
> 'peter', which is why I asked Avram what his preference was. I suppose
> the *really* clueless could interpret "ru-peter" as meaning Russian as
> spoken by Peter Constable, or perhaps Peter Griffin, but that is well
> beyond our ability to control.
Like Michael said, 'petrine' pertains to the
religious context (apostl's name). I'm no
indicator, but it seems to me that it's the use
of this to refer to the emperor Peter that would
More information about the Ietf-languages