Re: [I18n] Latin Belarusian

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

On 10/28/07, Yury Tarasievich <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, please pardon me for this cross-posting, which I hope would
> be the only one on my part. There are some issues here, that need to
> be taken into account.
>
> * The Belarusian orthography using Latin script in this form has
> little relevance and relation to the academic literary norm of
> Belarusian.


Yes. It's just  some kind of transliteration of Cyrillic Tarask variant, or,
for the taste of other side, Cyrillic Tarask is the form or
transcyrillization of Latin script:)

* On the other hand, the alternative literary norm in Cyrillic (IANA
> coded be-tarask) is, for various reasons, heavily influenced and
> related to what goes under the be-Latin.


Yes. These forms are quite equal (but not 100%).

* There are *two* in-country standardised ways of Romanisation of
> academic norm of Belarusian, almost-round-trip-safe table B of ISO 9
> (GOST 7) and practically-one-way Instruction on Transliteration of
> Geographical Names by Belarusian Land Usage Committee (2000 and 2007
> variants), neither of which is compatible with what goes under the
> be-Latin.
>
> * Finally, the *practical* usage of the Belarusian in Latin script
> seems to be fairly marginal, even among the promoters of the
> alternative literary norm.


Yes, the userbase is quite small though it is there anyway.

So, from the practical standpoint, I'd guess it'd be relatively safe
> to spare the resources and ignore the conversion from the academic
> norm to address@hidden FWIW.


That's what I recommend too. Anyway, having even half-conversion script in
gettext-tools would be great I think.