Re: [Ietf-languages] LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Lenny Soshinskiy <[e-mail]>]

Well, if 8 characters is completely unavoidable, then we might try a
makeshift compound word "vecdruka" (similar to those that are used in
German), although "vecdruka" is almost never used
<https://www.google.com/search?&q="vecdruka"> in Latvian. But it would be
recognizable and understandable and I think, an acceptable way to shorten
it in these circumstances.

Strictly speaking:
I. pre1910s (vecā druka) is not used anymore
II. pre1946 is still used by some in Latvain diaspora (not sure about
newspapers)
III. post1946 is a dominating variant

> Is the pre-1946 orthography readily readable to Latvians today?
II and III are very similar and some young Latvians might not see the
difference at once. That is because only 3 letters were removed.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 20:08, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:37 PM Lenny Soshinskiy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't prefer the "vecaa" tag, because it just makes it "the old" (if
>> translated) deconstructs the idiom "vecā druka". I think, the tag
>> "vecaadruka" would be 100% recognizable by any Latvian.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, it's too long: the maximum length is 8 characters.  That's
> why I suggested what seemed to be the most important word.
>
>
>> Is it an accepted convention to use words from the respective language
>> for the subtags ("rozaj" for Resian, "arevmda" for Western Armenian, etc.)?
>> Because in the beginning I was thinking of using a subtag in English
>> ("pre1910").
>>
>
> It is an accepted, but not a universal, convention to use words from the
> language, since they are unambiguous (unlike, say, "veryold").
>  Date-marked orthographies certainly exist, for example for German, but in
> that case there are definite dates when the new orthography went into
> effect for public purposes, though private enterprise may take years to
> change.  With Latvian being a submerged language under the Prussians, the
> Commonwealth, and the Russian Empire, I suppose there are no such "official
> dates" until Soviet times.  (The Prussians, as you probably know, referred
> to Latvian as "Undeutsch".)
>
>
>> * should a separate variant be created for the contemporary orthography
>> of the Latvian language?
>>
>
> If, as I suppose, most written works are in that variant, then probably
> not.  If they are coexisting, perhaps so.  Is the old orthography still in
> use in the Latvian diaspora?
>
> * also, on 5 June 1946, some letters were removed from the alphabet by the
>> orthographic reform (CH replaced with H, Ō with O, Ŗ with R). Should the
>> types before and after reform to be registered as well?
>>
>
> It's a question of need: is there a need to distinguish?  Is the pre-1946
> orthography readily readable to Latvians today?
>
>
>
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        [e-mail]
> A witness cannot give evidence of his age unless he can remember being
> born.
>                 --Judge Blagden
>
>