registration requests re Portuguese

[cowan at ccil.org]

Yury scripsit:

> I try to follow this discussion, if only to understand the necessity of
> combining the ruleset denoting suffix (like, "-ao1990" or "-abl1943")
> with anything more than language prefix "pt-".
> I might be not getting the big picture here, but isn't the
> language+ruleset absolutely unambiguous already?

It is not, because there are differences between national versions of
Portuguese that are not orthographic: grammar, vocabulary, and the forms
of the second person pronoun, for example.  If all forms of English
were to adopt a single orthography, there would still be many
differences between the national variants such as GB, US, IE, AU, IN.

So it is useful to be able to write "pt-PT-ao1990" or "pt-BR-ao1990"
to distinguish between different editions (translations) of a single
work.  This is not disputed.  The issue at hand is to determine
whether particular countries should be listed in the Registry as
an indication of where "ao1990" orthography is now in use, or
whether such a list is more confusing than helpful.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos        --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem           --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
  deity'll donate doughnuts                   --English version by Muke Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary            --Version by Mat McVeagh