Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

[João Miguel Neves]

Hi Michael,

It's a fact that the agreement is not adopted by all the countries.

It's also a fact the the current orthography has been used, it's
widespread in the education system, media and software in Portugal.

The fact that an ortography is actually in widespread use is not a
reason for a tag? I really don't understand that something that is used
on a daily base by most of the population of a country (as screwed as an
ortography agreement managed by diplomats will be) doesn't qualify for a
tag.

Thanks,
João

PS: Until the 1945 agreement (adopted by Brazil only in 1970), no other
countries where even heard regarding official Portuguese ortographies.

On 20/03/2015 17:15, Michael Everson wrote:
> The e-mail I received from Dr Emiliano, a linguist and phonetician in Portugal, suggests strongly to me that this is an unholy mess which isn’t serving any speaker of Portuguese anywhere. 
>
> In particular if there are legal suits pending on this matter, it would seem unadvisable to assign irrevocable codes to unstable entities, would it not?
>
> Note that António says: “As for the authoritative wordlists: they now exist both in BR and in PT. The problem is that in PT there at least 3 official wordlists and they do not agree.” He also says “the text of the 1990 treaty clearly states that the new orthography can only be implemented when/if all the CPLP-members ratify the treaty (that has not happened yet) and when/if a common wordlist is published”.
>
> Michael
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> I am minded to continue to reject these until and unless an actual authoritative wordlist can be given to support the specifications of each orthography.
> Well, you should.
>
>> Wikipedia articles are not sufficient evidence. 
> Ditto. Especially when Wikimedia believes that there is only PT (as a unity or a single language) and that PT is a homogeneous entity. It is not: pt-PT and pt-BR are two divergent linguistic systems and norms and the gap already affects mutual understanding between speakers from both sides of the Atlantic. Literate & informed TV viewers react badly to brazilian subtitles. It's offensive and ridiculous to watch a film subtitled in brazilian (and full of translatiom mistakes). BR is full of illeterate translators who work cheaply.
>
> As for the authoritative wordlists: they now exist both in BR and in PT. The problem is that in PT there at least 3 official wordlists and they do not agree.
>
> More below.
>
>> “5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):"
>>
>> Sorry. Thanks.
>>
>> Michael Everson
>>
>> On 16 Mar 2015, at 21:38, Andrew Glass (WINDOWS) <Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --------
>>>
>>> 1. Name of requester:
>>>   Andrew Glass
>>> 2. E-mail address of requester:
>>>   anglass at microsoft.com
>>> 3. Record Requested:
>>>     Type: variant
>>>     Subtag: ao1990
>>>     Description: Portuguese Orthographic Agreement of 1990 (Acordo Ortográfico de 1990)
>>>     Prefix: pt
>>>     Comments: Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1990 but not brought into effect until 2009
>>>
>>> 4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>>>    Denotes Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1990.
>>> 5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
>>>
>>> 6. Any other relevant information:
>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990
>>>
>>> --------
>>> 1. Name of requester:
>>>   Andrew Glass
>>> 2. E-mail address of requester:
>>>   anglass at microsoft.com
>>> 3. Record Requested:
>>>     Type: variant
>>>     Subtag: ao1945
>>>     Description: Portuguese Orthographic Agreement of 1945 (Acordo Ortográfico de 1945)
>>>     Prefix: pt
>>>     Comments: Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1945 generally in effect until 2009, except in Brazil
> We should remember that in its inception ao1945 was a luso-brazilian orthopography. It still is officially. BR recanted on the agreement 1 or 2 years after approving it, but the orthography is still luso-brazilian.
>
> There are legal issues here: ao1945 which is a law has not been revoked by a law; the only legal document is an information from a Cabinet meeting in 2008 (must check that) where the govt decided that ao1990 should be implemented in schools and in the official journal of the republic (Diário da República); this is not legal, but no one bothered to take this matter to a court of law. A law can only be revoked or superseded by another law. So from the legal point of view ao1945 is still in effect. 
>
> More: the text of the 1990 treaty clearly states that the new orthography can only be implemented when/if all the CPLP-members ratify the treaty (that has not happened yet) and when/if a common wordlist is published. That common wordlist does not exist. There is the BR wordlist (by the Academy) and there are 3 wordlists in PT (by ILTEC, the Academy, and the National Mint & Press).
>
> The is also the problem of how do you actually use these tags: if you browse articles in Wikipédia you will notice the in some there is a mixture of the two orthographies. In many public texts the same problem can be found. I recently signed a contract with a governmental institution and I had to correct it because it purported to written in ao1990 but was in fact written both in ao45 and ao90. I demanded of course that it be written in ao45. This is a mess, and until this mess is sorted there is no point in approving tags like ao1945 & ao1990. How do we use them? 
>
>
>>> 4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>>>    Denotes Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1945.
> How do you actually use that with texts with mixed forms? How would you classify monstrosities such as IMPATO for IMPACTO [ĩ.ˈpa.ktu], ESPETADOR for ESPECTADOR [ʃpɛ.tɐ.ˈdoɾ] or [ʃpɛ.ktɐ.ˈdoɾ], FATO for FACTO [ˈfa.ktu], OTAR for OPTAR [ɔ.ˈptaɾ] etc. These are "hyper-incorrect" forms resulting from ignorance. People do not know what ao90 is, and they just assume that in the sequences like -CT- -CC- -CÇ- -PT- -PC- -PÇ- the 1st letter is suppressed regardless of pronunciation.
>
>>> 5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
>>>
>>> 6. Any other relevant information:
>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography
> Please! WP is completely biased in this respect. They have bots crawling around and suppressing Cs and Ts in articles originally written in ao45, which is a violation of the "Brazilian WP's" stated policy.
>
> (I call the Portuguese-language WP "Brazilian WP", because the Brazilians have taken over and they act like its sole owners)
>
> I forbid my students from using Wikipédia: they cannot cite or refer to any article therein. Most articles about the Portuguese language, Linguistics, Portuguese Literature are quite atrocious.
>
>
>>> --------
>>> 1. Name of requester:
>>>   Andrew Glass
>>> 2. E-mail address of requester:
>>>   anglass at microsoft.com
>>> 3. Record Requested:
>>>     Type: variant
>>>     Subtag: abl1943
>>>     Description: 1943 Portuguese orthographic reform, Academia Brasileira de Letras
> There are legal suits pending in BR against ao90 more specifically against the Academy.
>
>
>>>     Prefix: pt
>>>     Comments: Denotes conventions established in 1943 and generally used in Brazil until 2009
>>> 4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>>>    Denotes Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1943.
>>> 5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
>>>
>>> 6. Any other relevant information:
>>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>>> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages