Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23

[António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)]

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
> 	ao1990)
> 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.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> 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  
>>> orthography?
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> 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  
enforced)

Regards. - A.

António Emiliano
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...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110827/48143541/attachment-0003.html>