Portuguese subtags (Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 6)

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.
 António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt 
Tue Sep 13 10:19:34 CEST 2011 

> Hello. Good morning.

> On 2011/09/12, at 23:36, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:36:21 -0400
>> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
>> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
>> Subject: 1945 subtag - Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 2
>> Message-ID: <SNT142-W44E0B4D5A438FE5B0BEE40B3020 at phx.gbl>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>
>> Hi, it's my understanding also from previous conversation on the  
>> list and from what I read elsewhere that the 1931 agreement came  
>> out of the 1911 changes
>> and that it was re-implemented in 1943; then more changes came in  
>> 1945;

> No. 1945 was the official recognition of the 1943 proposals.

Hmm, I read something different in Fiorin's text.  Thanks for your information. 

(I will provide an English translation of the French text I read, along with the original:
Translation:
'In 1911, the Portuguese government designated a commission for proposing the foundations/outline of the orthographic reform. 
This Commission proposed to adopt, with minor changes, the foundations/outline proposed by Goncalves Viana.
This orthography was made official September 1rst, 1911.  In enacting the reform, Portugal had not consulted Brazil.  For its part, for the reasons elaborated [above in the same document], Brazil did not accept the Portuguese norms.
Nevertheless, this orthography was adopted in Brazil in 1931, with an agreement concluded between the Brazilian Academy of Letters and the Lisbon Academy of Sciences. 
There had been, since 1907, a series/succession of attempts to spell out a Brazilian orthographic reform.
The 1934 Constitution, article 26 of Transitory? Dispositions/Provisions, says, "This constitution, written in the same orthography as that [the Constitution] of 1891, and which is adopted in the Country [Brazil], will be promoted? by the Council of the Assembly, after being signed by the Deputies present, and will take effect in full on the date of its publication."
With this, it [the Constitution] annulled the 1931 agreement.  
In 1943, the Convention Luso-Brazilian was signed, which reestablished the 1931 agreement.'


This is from 
José Luiz Fiorin
Université de São Paulo  (Brazil)
http://ressources-cla.univ-fcomte.fr/gerflint/BresilSPECIAL1/fiorin.pdf 
"En 1911, le gouvernement portugais nomme une commission pour proposer
les bases de la réforme orthographique. Cette commission propose d’adopter,
avec de petites altérations, les bases proposées par Gonçalves Viana. Cette
orthographe fut officialisée le 1er septembre 1911. Pour réaliser cette réforme,
le Portugal n’avait pas consulté le Brésil. Pour sa part, le Brésil, pour les
raisons exposées, n’acceptait pas la normativité portugaise. Néanmoins,
cette orthographe est adoptée au Brésil en 1931, par un accord conclu entre
l’Académie Brésilienne des Lettres et l’Académie des Sciences de Lisbonne.
Il y a eu, depuis 1907, une série de tentatives pour élaborer une réforme de
l’orthographe au Brésil.  La constitution de 1934, dans l’article 26 des Dispositions
Transitoires, dit : « Cette Constitution, écrite avec la même orthographe que
celle de 1891, et qui est adoptée dans le Pays, sera promulguée par le Conseil
de l’Assemblée, après avoir été signée par les Députés présents et entrera
en vigueur à la date de sa publication ». Avec cela, elle a annulé l’accord de
1931. En 1943, est signée la Convention Luso-Brésilienne, qui a rétabli l’accord
de 1931.")

But in any case, 1931 not 1943 is the date of the accord in question and what you say says that virtually the 1931 changes are essenially the same as the 1911 changes; this is exactly what Fiorin says.
So I do not see a problem with a 1911 and no 1931 subtag.  
(Antonio may have more correct info than Fiorin's then on 1943?  I can't easily read the Portuguese at Wikipedia but it does seem that Wikipedia may concur to some degree with Antonio -- I think it says that 1940 and 1943 publications after the 1931 agreement meant continued divergences between Brazil and Portugal which were resolved in 1945; please correct me if it does not say this:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulário_Ortográfico_de_1943#Hist.C3.B3ria
1943 is not an important date in any case; that much is clear from both Fiorin and Wikipedia.)

>>  so I only see 3 agreements.
>>
>> Then of course there is pre-1911
>>
>> (Since I am not Portuguese, someone may, if he/she wishes, tell me  
>> if my info. is accurate or not.  From what I could read of http:// 
>> dre.pt/pdfgratis/1931/05/12000.pdf  ; I did manage to go through  
>> the 7 paragraphs!  these changes -- the replacement of Greek  
>> consonant clusters such as ph with f, and the elimination of silent  
>> consonants, excepting things like the double r, seem to be quite  
>> similar to the changes proposed  the 1904
>> l?oeuvre Orthographe nationale ["National Orthography Treatise"],  
>> by Aniceto dos Reis Gon?alves Viana; I've pasted below this my  
>> previous reply to Joao and others with the link to the article  
>> describing Aniceto dos Reis Goncalves Viana's work and the three  
>> reforms, in case anyone needs that. )

>Vianna was one of the 2 masterminds behind the reform.
Thanks again Antonio for your information.

>> But I personally think 3 subtags, plus if you like a pre-1911 tag  
>> (with no hyphen as Philip says), will probably do.

> 1911 is a true (indisputable) watershed re the creation of a stable  
> orthographic system *in Portugal* (in Brazil via the 1931 agreement).
O.k. thanks this is what I read exactly; no need for a separate subtag for these two reforms then. 
> 1945 is a milestone (BR adhered to the 1945 reform, but disavowed it  
> 2 years later).
> 1990 has yet to be implemented but assuming that it will is a major  
> reform.
> All the other post-1911 “reforms” are minor adjustments.
Except 1945?
> I very much doubt that a 1931 subtag will serve any real purpose;  
> 1943 is equivalent to 1945 (1943 was the date of the convention/ 
> conference that took place, 45 is the date of the Portuguese decree  
> that approves and enforces the reform that came out of that  
> conference). 1931 was in fact a Luso-Brazilian agreement, but its  
> practical effect was to adopt in both countries the Portuguese 1911  
> reform (with minor changes/adjustments).

> After due consideration, I would say that the minimal and optimal set  
> of subtags for encoding Portuguese written texts is:

> pre1911 
Are there many documents written in this orthography on the web?   

> 1911bou - Bases da Ortografia Unificada
> 1945colb - Convenção Ortográfica Luso-Brasileira
> 1990aolp - Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa
> I confess that I am not very comfortable with the idea of suddenly  
> having all these PT subtags. But my main argument remains: if you  
> introduce a 1990 subtag then you MUST perforce also have 1945 and 1911.
Michael Everson basically supports your arguments here it seems. 
Peter's earlier post I think stresses that we need just the subtags for the orthographies that we are likely to encounter on the net.  (Though of course if there is any document in the pre-1911 orthography on the net at all, and you want a subtag to tag it, then request one, of course.)


> It is actually easy to encode any given text with these 4. 
O.k.; in spite of today's mixing of the 1990 changes with other spellings, these subtags work.
> I myself  
> would not know what to do with 1931 or 1943.
> On the other hand if you peek at the so-called Portuguese Wikipédia  
> or at some Portuguese newspapers you will find many examples of mixed  
> spelling, because most people who have embraced the 1990 reform do  
> not know how to apply it in practice (for lack of an official  
> reference tool).
This can be a problem in tagging language change over time. 

> There is still a potential snag regarding the 1990 subtag. I have  
> addressed this issue in my earliest comments and have not read a  
> satisfactory reply or suggestion. What should the meaning of the date  
> be?
> The 1990 reform was signed in 1990 by representatives of the  
> governments of 7 PT-speaking countries; it was approved by the  
> Portuguese Parliament in 1991; it was ratified by the Portuguese  
> president also in 1991; ; it lay dormant for almost 20 years; it was  
> officially introduced in PT in 2008; it will in principle be fully  
> enforced in PT in 2014 or 2015. I sincerely hope that no one uses  
> 1990aolp as a simple chronological tag (1911 and 1945 are  
> chronological tags, like the German tags -- they refer to the date of  
> official approval and implementation; 1990 does not).
Hmm.  So is any other name possible?  Or does "1990" sufficiently delineate this orthography for all concerned? (I don't think it has to be quite parallel with the other subtags in how it designates an orthography; that would be nice but I don't think it's necessary; my two cents.)

Thanks!
(My apologies if I've added to the confusion; I write this hoping to sort it out a bit.)


Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110913/c415d15d/attachment.html>