Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3

Mon Sep 12 16:16:02 CEST 2011

João,

1) About the 1931 agreement:

a) It was not fully implemented, since Academia das
Ciências did not accept the deletion of mute consonantal letters 

this is the agreement (7 paragraphs)

http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1931/05/12000.pdf

this is the agreement without the first paragraph

http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1931/06/12600.pdf

b) In Brazil, the enforcement had ups and downs, I
will spare you the details, you can read the full story here (see page 1) http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1945/12/27300.pdf

c) The 1931 changes were minor changes and, in my
opinion, they do not deserve a subtag such as 1911, 1945 and 1990 do. 

2 – Be careful! The “official vocabulary in http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/” is misleading and ambiguous. 
There are several examples. I won’t make them public, since I would be helping people who do not do their homework (the people in ILTEC in charge of the vocabulary), and I only give credit to those who study and do their homework. 
I can only assure you that they deleted too many consonants...
Cheers,

Francisco Miguel Valada

+32479855056
fmvalada at hotmail.com

> From: ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:03:18 +0200
> 
> Send Ietf-languages mailing list submissions to
> 	ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ietf-languages-owner at alvestrand.no
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ietf-languages digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28 (Philip Newton)
>    2. Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28 (Jo?o Miguel Neves)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:39:32 +0200
> From: Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
> To: Francisco Miguel Valada <fmvalada at hotmail.com>
> Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+cwSm_RDeP9t-HC8WNojHWfg2AirKL+XvdP4bF4-VTkC9SC2A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 13:56, Francisco Miguel Valada
> <fmvalada at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ant?nio Emiliano asked me to check the subtags, links and references.
> >
> > And we drafted the following proposal:
> >
> >> Subtag: pre-1911 / pre1911 [hyphen?]
> 
> No hyphen is possible; subtags are limited to eight alphanumeric characters.
> 
> Cheers,
> Philip
> -- 
> Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:03:12 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28
> Message-ID: <4E6E0310.1060204 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, this is enough for me to write the official proposals.
> 
> One correction: 1990aolp has an official vocabulary in
> http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/ (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico do
> Portugu?s).
> 
> The same doubt I had presented to Ant?nio: Why is the 1931 missing from
> the list?
> 
> I don't think the pre1911 makes sense given that there are several
> reforms before. I'm in favor of waiting for someone to need anything
> before 1911 (the guy behind http://www.dicionario-aberto.net/ told me
> he'll probably need it, so it won't take much time).
> 
> So, I'll fit the proposals to the templates for 1990aolp and 1945cil.
> Please tell me if the emails you want to be credited in are the ones you
> used on the mailing-list or not.
> 
> I have no problems doing the others after I understand why 1931 is out.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
> 
> Em 12-09-2011 12:56, Francisco Miguel Valada escreveu:
> >
> > Ant?nio Emiliano asked me to check the subtags, links and references.
> >
> > And we drafted the following proposal:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Subtag: pre-1911 / pre1911 [hyphen?]
> > > Link: ---------------------
> > > Reference: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31552/31552-pdf.pdf
> > >
> > > Subtag: 1911buo *
> > > Link: http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1911/09/21300.pdf
> > > Reference: http://purl.pt/424
> > >
> > > Subtag: 1945cil **
> > > Link: http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1945/12/27300.pdf
> > > Reference: Grande Dicion?rio L?ngua Portuguesa, Porto: Porto 
> > > Editora, 2004.
> > >
> > > Subtag: 1990aolp
> > > Link: http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1991/08/193A00.pdf
> > > Reference: ***
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > * Bases para a Unifica??o da Ortografia
> > > O nome oficial da reforma ? "bases para a unifica??o da ortografia 
> > > que deve ser adoptada nas escolas e nos documentos e publica??es 
> > > oficiais", Cf. http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1911/09/20600.pdf, p. 6
> >  
> > EN - The official name of the reform is: "bases para a unifica??o da 
> > ortografia que deve ser adoptada nas escolas e nos documentos e 
> > publica??es oficiais", Cf. http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1911/09/20600.pdf, 
> > p. 6 [bases for the unification/unifying the orthography which shall 
> > be adopted by schools and for use in official publications and 
> > documents]
> >  
> >  
> > > ** Confer?ncia Interacad?mica de Lisboa de 1945
> > > O Decreto n.? 35:228 aprova os resultados da Confer?ncia 
> > > Interacad?mica de Lisboa de de 10.8.1945 em harmonia com a 
> > > Conven??o Luso-Brasileira de 29.12.1943 [Conven??o para a unidade, 
> > > ilustra??o e defesa do idioma comum].
> >  
> > EN - The 1945 decree approves the results of the Lisbon Interacademic 
> > Conference, in accordance to the Luso-Brazilian Convention of 1943
> >  
> > *** There is not an official authoritative reference for the 1990 
> > reform, besides the text of the "Agreement"; several dictionaries 
> > have published which claim to be AOLP1990-compliant but the text of 
> > the treaty (article 2) states that a Common Vocabulary must be 
> > compiled with the collaboration of all the signatories.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > *
> > **Francisco Miguel Valada*
> >
> >
> > +32479855056
> > fmvalada at hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > This body part will be downloaded on demand.
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110912/a106c589/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> End of Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3
> **********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110912/abab0b59/attachment-0001.html>