Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 10

Francisco Miguel Valada fmvalada at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 15 09:56:54 CEST 2011


Joao,

I honestly haven't found any language change, dictionary or vocabulary
that isn't a target of criticism.
It is not an issue of criticizing it. 

The problem is about stability: it is not stable, it is an open platform.


It is not reliable, creates new Brazilian Portuguese words [they don't even double check, they just do it at random]; and the people in charge of it don't even read articles where mistakes are pointed out, they just sit there and wait for you to send them an email...

You could say that about many dictionaries, vocabularies and so on. But THIS one should be:


a) printed [i.e. ---> closed]

b) the most reliable tool you could ever imagine


and it is not.

We are not talking about politics (where you say "official" and business goes as usual), we are talking about a source of anxiety.

I wouldn't refer to it.


Best regards,

Francisco



> From: ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 10
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:57:17 +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: Portuguese subtags (Jo?o Miguel Neves)
>    2. Re: Portuguese subtags (Michael Everson)
>    3. Re: Portuguese subtags (Doug Ewell)
>    4. Re: Portuguese subtags (Kent Karlsson)
>    5. Re: Portuguese subtags (Jo?o Miguel Neves)
>    6. Re: Portuguese subtags (Jo?o Miguel Neves)
>    7. Re: Portuguese subtags (Jo?o Miguel Neves)
>    8. Portuguese subtags (Was;  Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104,
>       Issue	6/8) (CE Whitehead)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:13:37 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <4E70D2B1.8030607 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> Em 13-09-2011 10:38, Michael Everson escreveu:
> > On 12 Sep 2011, at 15:54, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) wrote:
> >>> One correction: 1990aolp has an official vocabulary in
> >>> http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/ (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico do
> >>> Portugu?s).
> >> No. I'm sorry but that is NOT an official reference work or tool. That is an online database, which by definition is not a closed entity. It has mistakes and it is NOT stable. I know it has been endorsed by the "Minist?rio da Educa??o" (the Dept of Education) but that endorsement cannot override what is clearly stated in the treaty.
> > Isn't this problematic, Jo?o?
> 
> I understand that Ant?nio doesn't like the official vocabulary and I
> know for a fact that he's not alone. That doesn't change the fact that
> it's the official wordlist for public education and, from January 1st,
> all the public administration in Portugal.
> 
> I honestly haven't found any language change, dictionary or vocabulary
> that isn't a target of criticism. I'm not knowledgeable enough to check
> the merit of Ant?nio and other's criticism. The VOP (Vocabul?rio
> Ortogr?fico Portugu?s) is the only official reference I know of. I will
> use it on the template. If the group decides that this is not enough,
> I'll just drop the matter and use non-official tags. At least I learned
> a lot in the discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:16:12 +0100
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> To: ietf-languages <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <C6418110-7217-4283-AACE-759DDC6DF9D7 at evertype.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> On 14 Sep 2011, at 17:13, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
> 
> > I understand that Ant?nio doesn't like the official vocabulary
> 
> So do I.
> 
> > and I know for a fact that he's not alone. That doesn't change the fact that
> > it's the official wordlist for public education and, from January 1st,
> > all the public administration in Portugal.
> 
> OK, so where's the list? Not the decree. The specification. The thing you can turn to to make sure that you're spelling a given word correctly. Is there such a source? If not, then there is nothing reliable to point an orthography subtag to, and that is problematic. 
> 
> > I honestly haven't found any language change, dictionary or vocabulary
> > that isn't a target of criticism. I'm not knowledgeable enough to check
> > the merit of Ant?nio and other's criticism.
> 
> Stipulated. That's fine. 
> 
> > The VOP (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico Portugu?s) is the only official reference I know of. I will
> > use it on the template. If the group decides that this is not enough, I'll just drop the matter and use non-official tags. At least I learned a lot in the discussion.
> 
> Is that a particular publication, say, with an ISBN?
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:16:22 -0700
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID:
> 	<20110914101622.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.2e2304b1b3.wbe at email03.secureserver.net>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves dot org> wrote:
> 
> > If the group decides that this is not enough,
> > I'll just drop the matter and use non-official tags.
> 
> If you do end up having to go this route, please, PLEASE use private-use
> tags that are syntactically valid according to BCP 47.  That basically
> means "pt-x-mumble" or "pt-BR-x-mumble" or such, where the "mumble"
> subtag is 2 to 8 letters and/or digits.  Please don't ignore the BCP 47
> validity requirements as some organizations have.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:38:48 +0200
> From: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> To: "ietf-languages at alvestrand.no" <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <CA96B348.1B009%kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="ISO-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Den 2011-09-14 19:16, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:
> 
> > On 14 Sep 2011, at 17:13, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
> 
> >> The VOP (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico Portugu?s) is the only official reference I
> >> know of. I will
> >> use it on the template. If the group decides that this is not enough, I'll
> >> just drop the matter and use non-official tags. At least I learned a lot in
> >> the discussion.
> > 
> > Is that a particular publication, say, with an ISBN?
> 
> I get that it is a web-site (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread):
> http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/. There is a search box. And if you
> put in the empty string and ask for "contains" (i.e. words in the list that
> contain the empty string), there are "182030 resultados" (only the 100 first
> ones are listed on the (first) result page).
> 
>     /Kent K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:20:01 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <4E710C71.6060808 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Em 14-09-2011 18:16, Michael Everson escreveu:
> > On 14 Sep 2011, at 17:13, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that Ant?nio doesn't like the official vocabulary
> > So do I.
> >
> >> and I know for a fact that he's not alone. That doesn't change the fact that
> >> it's the official wordlist for public education and, from January 1st,
> >> all the public administration in Portugal.
> > OK, so where's the list? Not the decree. The specification. The thing you can turn to to make sure that you're spelling a given word correctly. Is there such a source? If not, then there is nothing reliable to point an orthography subtag to, and that is problematic. 
> I've left the link before:
> 
> http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/index.php?action=vop&page=info
> 
> Use the search box on the top right to search/validate words.
> >> I honestly haven't found any language change, dictionary or vocabulary
> >> that isn't a target of criticism. I'm not knowledgeable enough to check
> >> the merit of Ant?nio and other's criticism.
> > Stipulated. That's fine. 
> >
> >> The VOP (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico Portugu?s) is the only official reference I know of. I will
> >> use it on the template. If the group decides that this is not enough, I'll just drop the matter and use non-official tags. At least I learned a lot in the discussion.
> > Is that a particular publication, say, with an ISBN?
> No, it's a website online at the above url. This is the way it's
> referenced in ministers' council decision for migrating the public
> administration.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:22:07 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <4E710CEF.3000306 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Em 14-09-2011 18:38, Kent Karlsson escreveu:
> > I get that it is a web-site (as someone mentioned earlier in this
> > thread): http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/. There is a search
> > box. And if you put in the empty string and ask for "contains" (i.e.
> > words in the list that contain the empty string), there are "182030
> > resultados" (only the 100 first ones are listed on the (first) result
> > page).
> 
> Thanks Kent, I hadn't noticed that detail. I'll probably try to get a
> full vocabulary out of there,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:25:44 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
> Message-ID: <4E710DC8.1050607 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Em 14-09-2011 18:16, Doug Ewell escreveu:
> > Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves dot org> wrote:
> >
> >> If the group decides that this is not enough,
> >> I'll just drop the matter and use non-official tags.
> > If you do end up having to go this route, please, PLEASE use private-use
> > tags that are syntactically valid according to BCP 47.  That basically
> > means "pt-x-mumble" or "pt-BR-x-mumble" or such, where the "mumble"
> > subtag is 2 to 8 letters and/or digits.  Please don't ignore the BCP 47
> > validity requirements as some organizations have.
> >
> Thanks for the tip. Hopefully I won't need it, but it's good to know,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:56:50 -0400
> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Portuguese subtags (Was;  Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104,
> 	Issue	6/8)
> Message-ID: <SNT142-W5DC7ADACB8E372D88EB4EB3070 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Hi, again Antonio, thanks for your information.
> 
> 
> I wish I could be of more help with the whole issue of the 1990 as the 1911 and 1945 subtags seem to be basically resolved (or are they?  is it still being disputed whether both of these are needed?)  However all I've managed to do is to verify that perhaps what Fiorin said (the French text) really does not dispute what your 1945 document says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt 
> Tue Sep 13 23:13:01 CEST 2011 
> 
> 
> > Hello!
> 
> > Ol?
> 
> > (why does this list not recognize Latin-1 precomposed characters?)
> These came through.
> 
> 
> > On 2011/09/13, at 20:55, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> 
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:56:30 -0400
> > From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> > To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> > Subject: Portuguese subtags (Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue
> > 	6)
> > Message-ID: <SNT142-W47B40DDB6F5E3DF7FCD0F5B3050 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> >
> >> No. 1945 was the official recognition of the 1943 proposals.
> >
> > Hmm, I read something different in Fiorin's text.  Thanks for your  
> > information.
> >
> > 1931. En 1943, est sign?e la Convention Luso-Br?silienne, qui a r? 
> > tabli l?accord
> >> de 1931.")
> 
> > This does not seem to match what is stated in the 1945 decree about  
> > 1931 and 1943.
> 
> O.k. I went and read the 1945 link that you all have posted
> 
> http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1945/12/27300.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as best as I can glean with my limited Portuguese reading skills,
> 
> this document does refer back to 1943 and 1940 agreements.
> In 1943 and 1940 agreements, the 1931 agreement was "published" or "republished" (according to the 1945 document above).
> Also section 1.2 of the 1945 document says that the 1945 agreement is in conformance with "Instrucoes para a Organizacao do Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa" spelled out in 1943 by the "Academia Brasileira de Letras".
> Essentially what Fiorin says is that the 1931 agreement was re-published in 1943 (in Brazil apparently; it was apparently, according to another source -- see below -- republished in Portugal in 1940);
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiorin mentions that it was republished under the "Convention Luso-Brazilian /Luso-Bresilienne"  so I finally googled that convention and found a tiny bit more about the 1945 spelling reform (more confusion?):
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=wawGFWNuHiwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Convention+Luso-Brazilian+1943&source=bl&ots=x8PY_BKHD0&sig=MrskdCHa9jYpuc3u3JuyJDnCvTM&hl=fr&ei=GDlxTpSsJ8Xi0QH-loX_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Convention%20Luso-Brazilian%201943&f=false
> "Pluricentric languages:  differing norms in different nations" by Michael G. Clyne:
> "In 1940, the Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa published "Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa," based on the 1911 reform"
> which apparently had certain modifications introduced in 1920 and 1931 agreements . . . 
> "The document differed from the 1931 agreement in that it reintroduced 'silent' consonants;
> [my note: thus the 1940-1943 agreements were slightly different from 1931, as you say]
> then the Academia Brazileira de Letras published its orthography in 1943, "Pegueno Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa"
> According to Clyne,
> the 1945 proposal was, although "initially approved in both countries," "poorly received in Brazil," and "Brazil adhered to the 1943 agreement."
> [My note again:  Brazil's disavowal of this reform 2 years after agreeing to it in 1945 has been previously mentioned by Antonio in the discussion; so this is not new info. for the list]
> But 1945 was the date both countries reached an agreement, though a slight variation of it may have ended up being used to some degree in Brazil.
> 
> >> 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.
> > OK.
> >> (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/Formul?rio_Ortogr? 
> >> fico_de_1943#Hist.C3.B3ria
> 
> > The preamble to the 1945 decree sums up all the reforms up to that  
> > date. I would dare to say it's our most reliable source. I still have  
> > to locate the minutes of the 43 Conference/Convention.
> 
> That's nice if you find those of course!  C: (However it seems what everyone is waiting for now is for everyone to agree on an acceptable dictionary or database of words for the 1990 agreement.)
> 
> >>> pre1911
> 
> >> Are there many documents written in this orthography on the web?
> 
> > Yes. See GoogleBooks.
> 
> > We cannot precisely date an inception date for Portuguese  
> > orthography. We can use a conventional date as terminus post quem  
> > which is the publication of Ant?nio de Moraes Silva's dictionary  
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ad0FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> is a history by Antonio de Moraes Silva that's what I found quickly.
> > (1789). Like historians of EN do with Samuel Johnson's Dictionary.
> 
> > Check this article: http://clp.dlc.ua.pt/Publicacoes/ 
> 
> 
> > Dicionarios_breve_historia.pdf
> Found it.
> > Section 7 deals with orthography.
> It mentions a couple of 19th century works on that.
> My Portuguese reading skills are pretty limited.
> > In another article T. Verdelho clearly states that Moraes' work  
> > played a fundamental role in stabilizing Portuguese orthography.
> 
> > Summing up: during the time period 1789-1911 there was a noncodified  
> > orthography. I would be more cautious and say that from the 1810's or  
> > 1820's on we can speak of a Portuguese orthography. Prior to that  
> > there simply was no orthography as we know it. The concept was around  
> > but the actual practice of scribes and printers was not orthographic.
> Hmm, I really know little of Portuguese, particularly pre-1911, except for a few Medieval Gallego Cantigas
> (there are at least two that are quite famous; one of these is "Levad 'Ameu," which Yvor Winters has done a passable translation of into English; these had I believe a silent h in between letters, for example in the pronoun "lhi" this text is on the web by the way; 
> http://pdf.rincondelvago.com/literatura-medieval-gallego-portuguesa.html). 
> You can always try to get this info together again at another date, if a pre-1911 subtag is in order and you wish to request it.
> But right now there's 1990 to be worked out so I leave this to another discussion before I get called "off topic."
> (But it's up to you, if you want to try for it; but you seem to be dropping it so I will too.)
> 
> 
> Best wishes resolving 1990.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com 
> 
> 
>  		 	   		  
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110914/4b6c7dd8/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 10
> ***********************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110915/4daf0192/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list