Re: [locale] Belarusian-HOWTO ?

[Alexander Mikhailian <mikhailian@inbox.ru>]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 01:14:46AM +0300, Vladimir Volovich wrote:
> "AN" == Aleksey Novodvorsky writes:
> 
>  >> Хочу представить на суд гуру новую версию Belarusian-HOWTO.
> [...]
>  AN> В glibc >=2.1 беларуская locale есть,
> [...]
>  AN> Увы, беларуской команды перевода KDE пока нет,
> [...]
>  AN> P.S. Кстати, беларуский словарь также есть в MDK RE,
> 
> Господа, прошу обратить внимание на то, что по-русски (т.е. в текстах
> на русском языке) правильно писать белорусский, а не беларуский.
> 
> Таким образом, в слове "беларуский" сразу две ошибки -- следует
> заменить "а" на "о", и добавить вторую букву "с".
> 
> Обсуждение этого вопроса см. на http://redactor.ru/ (раздел форум).
> 
> Кроме того, вызывает сомнение правильность написания "Belarusian".
> 

Я не уверен, что вопросы русского языкознания интересуют 
подписчиков locale@sensi.org. Могу посоветовать список
рассылки movaznaustva@yahoogroups.com, где к вашему замечанию 
отнесутся с вниманием.

Если всё-же кому-то интересно, то вот мнение Evan Kirshenbaum,
высказанное им недавно по тому же поводу в news://comp.std.internat
в заключение короткого флейма. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>I wonder why anyone should spell "Russian", which is an English word,
>>>with only one "s". Even if it is "russkij" in Russian and "ruski" in
>>>Belarussian, this does not alter the spelling of an English word.

>>>The spelling "Belarusian" with one "s" in an English language text
>>>is just another example of PC bullshit.

> >It is not.  Belarus has its own practicies in spelling its name 
> >and the name of its language in English and this has nothing 
> >to do with the way your perception of "correctness" works.
> 
> Since when has a non-English-speaking country dictated how things
> are to be spelled in English?

This is an interesting question (more for aue than for csi, I'm sure),
but I would guess that possessors of proper names have been expressing
opinions as to the name, pronunciation (within reason), and spelling
of their names for quite some time.  It only appears to be in this
century that such opinions have carried official weight.

I would guess that it's a combination of two things.  First, countries
recognize one another's preferences by treaty.  Especially for newly
independent countries there is often a move to change either the name
or at least the form of the name to remove the association with the
formerly dominant power.  I suspect that (pace the problems with
disputed names like "Macedonia" and "China"), international
organizations like the UN probably give members pretty wide latitude
in this area, as do nations like the US.  There's no reason to start a
relationship with a new government off on the wrong foot by being
beligerent over something as trivial as a name.  (Except, of course,
in the case in which your country has an powerful group that has an
interest in the old name.)

The second reason is simple courtesy.  Unless you have a stake in the
old name, or unless the new name is patently offensive or silly, we
tend to go along with the wishes of the people being described.  We do
this with personal names, why not with countries?  Of course, you are
free to ignore such wishes at the expense of appearing old-fashioned
and insensitive.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories                    |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U   |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA  94304               |quite hard to speak a sentence of
                                   |modern English without inadvertently
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572                      |             Terry Pratchett
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/
							       
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Alexander Mikhailian