Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Sat Aug 27 16:11:25 CEST 2011
On Aug 27, 2011, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:50:35 +0100
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from
> Message-ID: <08BCFABC-C93A-4E9E-8FF4-767A10699A1A at evertype.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 19:17, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) wrote:
>>> If it makes good sense to be able to tag the "new" orthography,
>>> it makes the same good sense to be able to tag the previous non-
>>> Brazilianized orthography.
>>> The way that we have done this before is to have a subtag defined
>>> by a reference work, to a particular specification of the
>>> orthography. Not to a governmental decree, for instance, but to a
>>> (mostly at least) complete instantiation of the orthography in
>>> question. I don't know that we need to be able to tag every
>>> revision of the orthography, but the pre- and post-"Accord"
>>> division is a bit of a watershed.
>> The pre1911 and 1911 division is actually the major watershed in
>> PT, Michael.
>> The pre1931 and 1931 division is the Brazilian counterpart. 1931
>> is *similar* to 1911.
>>> Can Ant?nio and Jo?o point to such authoritative works for each
>> What's your take on my ?systemic approach? and my request/wish for
>> a ?complete? set of subtags?
>> It does stem from some of the stuff I've watched you do for Unicode.
> To be honest, what I really care about in the short term is being
> able to distinguish the present, stable European Portuguese
> orthography from the new Brazilianized "accord" which may be
> adopted in Portugual. If that means 1911 and 1990, that's fine;
> compare German.
Michael I understand the short term need for at least two Portuguese
subtags (1945, 1990).
I also understand that subtags containing just a date might be
frowned upon because they are ambiguous/vague.
To quote from a previous post of mine:
> ... if letters are felt to be needed I wld say they that shld come
> after the date: 1990aolp, 1945colb, 1911bop.
The letters refer to the *official* name of the governmental
specifications of the reforms in Portugal:
1911 - Bases da Ortografia Portuguesa (w/ several subsequent
ammendments and revisions)
1945 - Convenção Ortográfica Luso-Brasileira (w/ an ammendment in 73)
1990 - Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa (still not fully
Regards. - A.
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
PS. is the format of the messages in this list Unicode-aware? (my
diacritics & curly quotes keep disappearing)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages