Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from ao1990) [Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 25]

António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Mon Aug 29 14:31:55 CEST 2011


On 2011/08/28, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:33:15 -0400
> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from
> 	ao1990)	(Mistagged ? Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23)
> Message-ID: <SNT142-W214BEE145420D7DADC32B8B3120 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Hi.
> Ant?nio 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:
>
>> On 26 Aug 2011, at 19:17, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) wrote:

> Just a quick question regarding the dates; is the info (in English)  
> at the following URL accurate for all dates/countries:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography
> Thanks for clarifying this.

I will write back to you about this ASAP (which might not be as soon  
as I would like).

>> 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.
> Hi, after reading this and Addison's post,
> I have decided to not push one order or another,
> but do hope we can get decent names for these short subtags (though  
> we can no longer get these for language subtags)
>> 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 - Conven??o Ortogr?fica Luso-Brasileira (w/ an ammendment in 73)
>> 1990 - Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua Portuguesa (still not fully
>> enforced)
> Thanks Antonio very much for this.
> I do feel some letters may be needed because of different dates of  
> implementation in Brazil and Portugal.
> That's a personal opinion.

Agree. Also for reasons of possible ambiguity/vagueness of a simple  
date.

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:33:05 +0100
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23
> Message-ID: <0B0BC628-89F8-4427-9971-FEA066DA1FA7 at evertype.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On 27 Aug 2011, at 15:11, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) wrote:
>
>> 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 - Conven??o Ortogr?fica Luso-Brasileira (w/ an ammendment in 73)
>> 1990 - Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua Portuguesa (still not fully  
>> enforced)
>
> Please stop worrying about the name for the moment. The question  
> is, is the 1911 BOP a complete specification? Or is it an outline  
> that there is an agreement? In that case I would like a reference  
> to an authoritative dictionary or orthography-list, so that those  
> interested in matching the subtag to something can match it to  
> something more substantial than a decree.
>
> The same question goes for the 1945 COLB.
>
> Can you supply such references, please?

Yes. As soon as I possibly can which will not be today.
Will either send URLs of online files or the files themselves. Let me  
see what I and Francisco Valada can come up with.
We are already compiling facsimiles of the decrees. We prefer a  
facsimiles to transcriptions.
For the 1990 reform we should manage an official text-PDF file.
For the earlier reforms we will probably have to make do with image- 
PDF files.

Michael, please note this: the decrees contain a full description of  
the reforms.
They do not contain wordlists or vocabularies, but they present many  
examples.
Since the decrees contain the *official specifications* of the  
reforms and also their official names they should be allowed as  
authoritative references.

Best regards. - A.



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list