<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br>Hi again. It seems that there is some non-reform text at "Publico," as Antonio says, so it may not be the best example of reform spelling. "Diario de Noticias" however may follow the reform orthography. (Hope that's correct.)<BR><br><BR>António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt <br>Sat Sep 17 12:54:19 CEST 2011 <br><br>> On 2011/09/17, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:<br><br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:12:12 -0400<br>> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com><br>> . . . <br><br>>> I briefly went to both Publico and Diario de Noticias, after <br>>> reading Antonio's post (Antonio says that "Publico" is not adopting <br>>> the reform).<br>>> (One Note: Regardless of whether or not these newspapers are <br>>> adopting the reform, unfortunatley both "Diario de Noticias" and <br>>> "Publico" sometimes carry the same articles. An example is the <br>>> following article -- the first copy came from "Diario de Noticias;" <br>>> the second from "Publico":<br>>><br>>> "O ministro da Educa??o e Ci?ncia, Nuno Crato afirmou hoje em Valpa? <br>>> os que sempre houve professores com contratos a termo de um m?s, <br>>> mas que este ano se verificou uma renova??o autom?tica."<br>>><br>>> "O ministro da Educa??o e Ci?ncia, Nuno Crato, afirmou hoje, em <br>>> Valpa?os, que sempre houve professores com contratos a termo de um <br>>> m?s, mas que este ano se verificou uma renova??o autom?tica."<br>>><br>(Sorry about the character substitutions for accented characters in email.)<br>>> In this case I guess the spelling is the same both with/without <br>>> implementing the orthographic reform -- is this correct?<br><br>> Yes, because that quotation has no words affected by the reform.<br>>> But I wonder what what spelling will be used if these newspapers <br>>> opt to carry other identical articles where there are words that <br>>> are not spelled the same way pre- and post-reform? Oh well.)<br><br>> There is Portuguese news agency called Lusa which has adopted the <br>> reform. Many newspapers opt to quote from Lusa's dispatches about <br>> current events or last minute news without any text editing. <br>Thanks for info. This is understandable, I guess (news can't wait). <br><br>The following seems to be the URL for Lusa:<br>http://www.lusa.pt/default.aspx?page=home<BR>(Hope that's right.)<br><BR>So does Joao also agree this is a good example of pre-reform Portuguese?<BR><br><BR>> Público <br>> and others however always correct the spelling in the Lusa texts.<br><br>>> I did find another text:<br>>><br>>> "Na sequ?ncia de um relat?rio publicado em Abril pelo Tribunal de . . . <br>>> . . . <br>The above text was butchered in email; I'll try pasting it in again:<br>"Na sequência de um relatório publicado em Abril pelo Tribunal de Contas sobre os encargos assumidos e não pagos pela Madeira, o INE e o BdP avaliaram as contas da região e detectaram que “as dívidas contraídas desde 2004 e objecto de Acordos de Regularização de Dívidas (ADR) em 2008 e 2009 não foram registadas como encargos assumidos e não pagos, não tendo sido igualmente comunicadas às autoridades estatísticas”."<BR>
(Note that the url is now apparently:<br>http://podium.publico.pt/Política/dividas-da-madeira-obrigam-a-revisao-dos-defices-entre-2008-e-2010_1512210 )
<br><BR>>> This is from Publico (http://economia.publico.pt/noticia/dividas- <br>>> da-madeira-obrigam-a-revisao-dos-defices-entre-2008-e-2010_1512210);<br>>><br>>> So I do have a question:<br>>> would "<br>>> contra?das" be written without the accent if this were written <br>>> according to the 1990 orthographic reform?<br><br>> No.<br><br>Thanks for the info.<br>I went back and pasted the above text into the link for converting text at Porto Editora's site (
http://www.portoeditora.pt/acordo-ortografico/conversor-texto/
; Antonio mentions Porto Editora's dictionary, not text converter, below),<br>and according to Porto Editora's converter at least this particular text in Publico does not follow the reform spelling; <br>"objecto" would become "objeto" if it did according to the Porto Editora converter.<br>(Is this at least correct?)<BR><br><BR>So this is at least an example of a non-reform text.<BR><br><BR>However, an article that appeared today in Publico seems indeed to be written according to the reform spelling according to the Porto Editora text converter: <br>http://www.publico.pt/<br>"Continua a pressão sobre o líder palestiniano, Mahmoud Abbas, abandonar a ideia de pedir a adesão de um Estado palestiniano à ONU. Hoje, a UE pediu “uma solução construtiva""<br><br>Would not "ideia" have an accent in a non-reform text? (I am not sure about "construtiva" either; is this spelling reform or is it both?)<br><br>So thus Publico does contain some reform text, although it also seems to contain some non-reform text, for what that's worth. But Antonio may be right here; Publico does not seem to be the best example of the reform spelling.<br><br>> There is a good dictionary in print by Porto Editora. <br>Is it: "Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa - com Acordo Ortográfico da Porto Editora" (Porto Editora) <BR>http://www.portoeditora.pt/ ?<br><BR><br>(Porto Editora as noted above also has posted a free online text conversion -- non-reform to reform )<br><br>Thanks. <BR>I don't know if any issues have been resolved by all this discussion (but I do know I have learned to read modern Portuguese a bit better! so thanks C:).<BR><br><BR><br>Best,<br><br>--C. E. Whitehead<br>cewcathar@hotmail.com <br>> There are two <br>> not so good dictionaries by Texto Editora. These latter two were <br>> compiled from materials stolen (yes, stolen) from the Portuguese <br>> Academy by one of the authors of the 1990 reform. However per the <br>> 1990 treaty these dictionaries cannot be considered authoritative <br>> references regarding the application of the reform. Until a common <br>> vocabulary is published by all 8 PT-speaking countries there will be <br>> no official specification for the reform. That is the letter and <br>> spirit of the treaty that was signed in 1990.<br><br>> Best regards. - A.<br> </div></body>
</html>