Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 4

[António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)]

On 2011/09/12, at 15:16, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

I completely agree with Francisco. - A.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:16:02 +0000
> From: Francisco Miguel Valada <fmvalada at hotmail.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
> Subject: RE: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3
> Message-ID: <SNT114-W5356220DD8C3C06433FE86DB020 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> João,
>
> 1) About the 1931 agreement:
>
>
> a) It was not fully implemented, since Academia das
> Ci?ncias 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