Proposed new variant subtag: pre1917
ajlyon at ucla.edu
Wed Sep 15 07:01:07 CEST 2010
2010/9/15 Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
> 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.
Shakhmatov was the chair of the Orthographic Commission that released
the recommendations in May of 1917. They were promulgated by the
Bolshevik decree in December/January 1917/1918, but they had already
been formulated before the October/November revolution. With all due
respect to Bunin and his dislike for the new orthography, I think that
this was a major accomplishment by Shakhmatov and we shouldn't be
worried about whom we are blaming for the reforms.
> 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 confuse matters.
At least in American Slavistics, Petrine is used very widely to refer
to Peter I, and specifically to the reforms. No one would call these
"Peter's reforms" -- only "the Petrine reforms".
More information about the Ietf-languages