sub at zedlik.com
Tue Apr 24 01:35:43 CEST 2007
Ciaran O Duibhin wrote:
COD> So, is there controversy about the name among the users of the orthography,
COD> or is the objection only from non-users?
Please, let me clarify. The objection is only from non-users. I
represent the opinion of the users. They are for.
Yury Tarasievich can't stand Taraskievica at all and certainly don't
use it, therefore as I understood he raises the objections to bring the
classical orthography to the poor position unlike the currently
official orthography or trying to prevent the classical Belarusian
orthography from being registered.
Doug Ewell wrote:
DE> Question for all: Are there any likely users of this subtag who would
DE> not understand the term "Taraskievica" or its relationship to the subtag
DE> value "tarask", and would need the word "classical" to help them
DE> understand the meaning of the subtag?
To my mind the majority of users do understand the term Taraskievica.
Simply "tarask" subtag is not so obviuos shortening and I suppose need
to be explained. But concerning that Taraskievica has several
revisions to avoid any confusion and that the last revision the subtag
intended to be used for has a title 'Belarusian classical orthography'
I think that thete is a need to specify this title in Comments besides
Mark Crispin wrote:
MC> That seems to be an extremely dangerous policy. As soon as you allow the
MC> "users" of an orthography to choose the name, all sorts of crackpot
MC> political names will pop up.
I agree with you. I've just googled to see how widespread the title
"classical orthography" in Belarusian is.
'"клясычны правапіс"' ('classical orthography' in Belarusian) has 791
references, '"клясычнага правапісу"' (the same in dative) -- 534
references, '"клясычным правапісам"' (in instrumental) -- 439
references. Overall more than 1750. But in the same time this can be
compared to the general words.
'відэлец' (fork) has 367 references, 'дыван' (carpet) -- 536
references, 'шоўк' (silk) -- 438 references, 'аловак' (pencil) -- 1320
references. All these simple usual words are in the dictionary, and if
'classical orthography' (a special term) has more references and
rather widespread, I don't think it really can be considered as a
crackpot invention or something like this.
Frank Ellermann wrote:
FE> As non-user without objection wrt the comment I'd wonder
FE> why the users picked an English adjective for their name.
Good point. But it was no ability to create a understandable subtag
name based on the term 'Bielaruski klasycny pravapis' (literally
'Belarusian classical orthography'), therefore 'tarask' was proposed.
According to the comments "so called Belarusian classical orthography"
is more understandable than "so called 'Bielaruski klasycny
pravapis'", and any of the words can be translated into English.
So, I just ask registering "tarask" subtag, please, keep both the
titles Taraskievica and Belarusian classical orthography in the
More information about the Ietf-languages