Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from ao1990)

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.

João Miguel Neves joao at silvaneves.org
Tue Aug 30 15:38:11 CEST 2011



> Em 26-08-2011 17:48, António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) escreveu:
>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> There's an international agreement between Portugal and Brazil in 1931
> that was implemented officially in 1940 in Portugal and in 1943 in
> Brasil. According to claims I've seen most of it's contents is from the
> Portuguese 1911 reform.

Information posted at Language Links concurs with the information provided by you and Wikipedia regarding the 1931 agreement:
http://www.languagetranslation.com/blogs/?p=754
(I also found additional informaiton online
that suggests that both Brazil and Portugal agreed to this again in 1943 -- but the 1931 date seems fine with me; it's the first agreement; but see the pro-reform page/site -- in English:  http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/wportref.htm
The second resource that mentions the second 1943 agreement is in French; it seems to be a good source).

> "1931 <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/wiki/1931> - Primeiro
> Acordo Ortográfico por iniciativa da Academia Brasileira de Letras
> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/wiki/Academia_Brasileira_de_Letras>
> e aprovado pela Academia das Ciências de Lisboa
> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/wiki/Academia_das_Ci%C3%AAncias_de_Lisboa>,
> em Portugal publicado no /Diário do Govêrno/, n.º 120, I Série, 25 de
> Maio de 1931."

> If we go for international treaties, then it would be: 1931, 1945, 1990.
> I agree we can extend to 1911 given the huge reform it was. 
> This means
> I'll be searching reference material for 1945 and 1990. Feel free to
> help in these or all of them.

I am not sure if the following online paper by Fiorin -- a Portuguese author; but
 published in French -- which I've translated / summarized parts of below (in parentheses),
 is helpful for cataloguing the 1911 reform (which was apparently agreed
 upon by both Brazil  & Portugal in 1931; then annulled in 1934, 
then with little change readopted in a second 1943 agreement followed by
 a new one in 1945 which was met with protests in Brazil and so the 1943
 agreement was returned to in Brazil in 1955; a third accord was agreed 
upon in 1971, and the 1990 agreement is apparently an effort to work out some 
differences remaining in the Brazilian and Portuguese orthographies).



The 1911 agreement, according, to the paper by Fiorin in French (which 
seems reliable), seems to have been based on a 1904 work by Anceto dos 
Reis Goncalves Viana who began coming up with principles of orthography 
beginning 1885


(José Luiz Fiorin

Université de São Paulo, L'accord sur l'orthographe:  une question de politique linguistique



http://ressources-cla.univ-fcomte.fr/gerflint/BresilSPECIAL1/fiorin.pdf ;



"La troisième période est intitulée période de l’orthographe historico-scientifique

ou simplifiée. Elle débute avec la publication, en 1904, de l’oeuvre Orthographe

nationale, d’Aniceto dos Reis Gonçalves Viana."

"a) élimination complète de tous les symboles servant à représenter les phonèmes

grecs : th, ph, ch [= k], rh et y ;"
{ elimination of all symbles representing Greek sounds (phonemes; in vogue at the time) }



"b) réduction des consonnes redoublées en consonnes simples, à l’exception de rr et de

ss, qui ont des valeurs phonétiques propres;"
{ reduction of doubled consonants, making these single consonants, excepting rr and ss . . . " }



"c) élimination des consonnes nulles qui n’ont aucune influence sur la prononciation de

la voyelle précédente;"
{ elimination of silent consonants that do not influence the preceding vowel }



"d) régularisation de l’accentuation graphique."

{ regularization of accents }



In 1911 the Portuguese created a commission which adopted, with small changes, the reforms proposed by Goncalves Viana.

It was made official in Portugual without Brazilian input. It was 
adopted by both in 1931 by an agreement / treaty concluded between the 
Brazilian Academy of Letters and the Academy of Sciences in Lisbon. In 
1934 however the accord was annulled.



In 1943 the Luso-Bresilienne Convention was signed, reestablishing the 
1931 agreement.  This was approved by the Brazilian Academy of Letters 
1943.



In 1945 as a result of divergent interpretations of orthographic rules 
the Brazilians and Portuguese got together again to create a documemt 
explaining them, "Conclusions . . . " [I have the name in French only].  The modifications were great . . . and so it's viewed as a new reform.


It favored Portuguese pronuciations. In 1955 Brazil returned to the 1943
 accord which meant schism for the two countries' orthographies.

[Some differences in the two orthographies remained to hopefully be 
eliminated mostly with the 1990 accord.]  That's the gist of what I've 
read.)

Hope this is what you are looking for.

Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 

>> 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.
>>
> I would have no problem doing that, if it didn't take time. I'm not a
> specialist on the language, I'm an IT guy that manages a few translation
> projects. If you provide the reference materials required, I'll have no
> problem submitting the other proposals.

> Thaks in advance,
> João Miguel Neves


 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110830/91a40c69/attachment-0001.html>