Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Mon Sep 12 16:54:28 CEST 2011
On 2011/09/12, at 14:03, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:03:12 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28
> Message-ID: <4E6E0310.1060204 at silvaneves.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Ok, this is enough for me to write the official proposals.
> One correction: 1990aolp has an official vocabulary in
> http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/ (Vocabul?rio Ortogr?fico do
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 "Ministério da Educação" (the Dept
of Education) but that endorsement cannot override what is clearly
stated in the treaty.
I *entreat* Michael Everson to oppose in the strongest terms possible
the inclusion of even a single reference to this database in the
That thing is an embarassment to all serious Portuguese linguists.
We are waiting for the Portuguese Academy to publish its vocabulary,
but even that vocabulary will not fulfil the requirements of the
treaty, which are clearly stated.
> The same doubt I had presented to Ant?nio: Why is the 1931 missing
> the list?
Why should it be included? Clarify please.
> I don't think the pre1911 makes sense given that there are several
> reforms before.
Those reforms were “informal” reforms in the sense that no formal
royal or governmental decree was issued concerning them (that we know
‘pre1911’ will provide, I think, a nice way to encompass all texts
written prior to the existence of an official Portuguese orthography.
> So, I'll fit the proposals to the templates for 1990aolp and 1945cil.
> Please tell me if the emails you want to be credited in are the
> ones you
> used on the mailing-list or not.
<antonio.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt>
> I have no problems doing the others after I understand why 1931 is
You will have to explain why it should be in, please, given that it
is basically the confirmation of the acceptance of the 1911 reform by
Brazil (v. article 1).
Here is the decree: http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1931/05/12000.pdf
I think that the inclusion of a 1931 subtag (i.e. <1931bao> - Bases
Para Um Acordo Ortográfico) raises the problem of where do you stop.
Since 1911 there have been several official orthographical changes in
both PT and BR.
In my view only major reforms should encoded: those are 1911, 45, 90.
It still remains to be seen whether the latter will be fully enforced.
For the moment there is NOT a single authoritative normative tool for
its practical application.
Both Francisco Miguel Valada and I can provide data and opinions
regarding the Portuguese end or side of this process.
Best regards. - A.
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
More information about the Ietf-languages