Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from ao1990)

[António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)]

On Aug 25, 2011, at 17:27, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:09:41 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from
> 	ao1990)
> Message-ID: <4E5665B5.8030605 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>>
> Em 25-08-2011 15:59, Philip Newton escreveu:
>
>>
>>> We got along pretty well in PT without <1911> and <1945> subtags.
>>> I mean 1911 was a major reform that changed drammatically the  
>>> outlook of the
>>> written Portuguese language in Portugal (typographico > tipogr?fico,
>>> grammatica > gram?tica, archetypo > arqu?tipo, millennio > mil? 
>>> nio). No need
>>> for it was felt in past 100 yrs...
>>> Shouldn?t one wait till the 1990-reform is fully enforced in  
>>> Portugal and
>>> the remaining countries to add the subtag?
>> I believe this is a question to be addressed to Jo?o Miguel Neves,  
>> who
>> proposed the subtag, not to the ietf-languages list.

> So, exactly because the 1990 agreement

It is an international treaty. Not an agreement (in EN, at least).

> is not in full-force is the
> reason why I need the variant tags. Given that I have a group of  
> people
> that are committed to maintain spellcheckers and hyphenation rules for
> the prior language,

You mean the prior *spelling*, which is pt-XX-1945. The language will  
be the same.

> I need some way to mark them apart.

So you do need to propose at least two subtags: one for the pre- 
existing spelling system, the other for the 1990-reform.
<1945> and <1990> should do it.

But now that you're at it, and since these things have to be  
discussed and argued for before a committee I would suggest that a  
“batch” of tags be proposed for the major spelling changes of the  
past 100 years. They're not that many and they would make a useful  
set for anyone engaged in your type of activity or in pt language  
encoding.

> Until 2015 I
> have to handle both variants, waiting until then for the problem to
> disappear means losing users.

I see the point.
But I wld like to make a correction if I may: the “problem” will not  
go away in 2014-15. Texts in pt-1945 will be around.
Furthermore, the presidental ratification charter of the Acordo do  
2.º Protocolo Modificativo do Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa  
(2004) (2nd ammendment to the AOLP) states clearly that no text  
written prior to the 1990-reform can be considered obsolete or invalid.

All this seems to point IMO to the need of at least 3 tags: 1911,  
1945, 1990. I wld add <pre1911> for now. This set wld establish an  
informal precedent of using just dates for indicating major spelling  
reforms.

Regards. - A.

António Emiliano
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt

> ------------------------------
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:40:49 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from
> 	ao1990)
> Message-ID: <4E566D01.4000606 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Em 25-08-2011 15:48, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) escreveu:
>>
>> I think this is the most simple (and less problematic) procedure .
>>
>> pre1911 - Traditional Portuguese orthography (late 18th century to
>> early 20th century)
>> 1911 - Portuguese orthography of 1911
>> 1945 - Portuguese orthography of 1945 (Conven??o Ortogr?fica
>> Luso-Brasileira, 1945)
>> 1990 - Portuguese orthography of 1990 (Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua
>> Portuguesa, 1990) -->
>> --> alternatives: 1991 (ratification), 2008 (transitional
>> enforcement), 2014 (full enforcement?)
>
> Hi Ant?nio.
>
> Does 1945 make sense?

Yes.

> Was the 1971 Brazilian implementation the adoption of the 1945  
> agreement?

No. Brazil signed the Convenção of 45 but then rejected it.
In the late 60s & early 70s PT and BR tried yet again to coordinate  
their attempts at spelling reform. 1971 is BR reform whereas 1973 is  
a PT reform. Those were minor reforms (compared with the major  
reforms of 1911, 1945 and 1990). The contents of the 1973-reform  
reached the Portuguese schools some years before '73. But 1973 is the  
year of the govt decree that enforces the spelling changes.

> Portugal's small change in 1973 indicated that to me, but I've seen  
> contradictory opinions and would like to know what's
> yours.

It was a simple amendment to the 1945-reform. If one adopts the  
criterion that only MAJOR spelling reforms (either in PT or BR) shoud  
be tagged I wld see no point in tagging the 1973 change.

In this particular instance I wld say wait till someone comes  
forwards and says they need a <1973> subtag.

>> The meaning for the dates must be clarified.
>> Earlier periods should be considered: pre1214, 1214, 1255, 1536, 15th
>> century,  ...
>> Regional variants should also be encoded in subtags: at least one for
>> each the signatories of the Treaty of 1990.
>> Differences between Portuguese and Brazilian are huge (they're
>> different languages functionally and for all linguistic purposes no
>> matter how they are written).

> We're discussing here the variant subtag. The usage is
> <language>-<country>-<region>-<variant>. That means that language,
> country and region are already encoded in the other subtags. So, even
> without a variant tag, pt-PT and pt-BR are already different. The
> variant subtag would not change that.

OK. I see the point. Will not press it further (until a  
dialectologist shows up who needs to encode several regional dialects).

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:47:00 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from
> 	ao1990)
> Message-ID: <4E566E74.7000904 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Em 25-08-2011 15:48, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) escreveu:
>>
>> I think this is the most simple (and less problematic) procedure .
>>
>> pre1911 - Traditional Portuguese orthography (late 18th century to
>> early 20th century)
>> 1911 - Portuguese orthography of 1911
>> 1945 - Portuguese orthography of 1945 (Conven??o Ortogr?fica
>> Luso-Brasileira, 1945)
>> 1990 - Portuguese orthography of 1990 (Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua
>> Portuguesa, 1990) -->
>> --> alternatives: 1991 (ratification), 2008 (transitional
>> enforcement), 2014 (full enforcement?)

> Why did you choose to leave the 1931 agreement implemented in 1940 in
> Portugal ainda in 1943 in Brazil out?

Sorry I don’t understand this (the paragraph seems to be truncated).
Please clarify.
This is an important issue.

>> The meaning for the dates must be clarified.
>> ...

> I'm going for the first publication year. We're free to chose a  
> meaning
> for the dates as there is no defined meaning in the RFC.

OK. Point taken.

> PS: I'm only interested in having the two latest orthographies
> registered. If you need the others, feel free to propose them.

I do think that a systemic approach to tagging will benefit the whole  
community and not just the authors of any given proposal with  
particular needs.
I mean, if you need a <1990> tag why not throw in some other tags  
that make sense and form a set? See my arguments elsewhere in the  
discussion.

Best regards. - A.

António Emiliano
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt