Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3

António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at
Mon Sep 12 16:54:28 CEST 2011

On 2011/09/12, at 14:03, ietf-languages-request at wrote:

> ------------------------------
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:03:12 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at>
> To: ietf-languages at
> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28
> Message-ID: <4E6E0310.1060204 at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Hi,
> Ok, this is enough for me to write the official proposals.
> One correction: 1990aolp has an official vocabulary in
> (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 "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  
> from
> 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>

> I have no problems doing the others after I understand why 1931 is  
> out.

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:

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.

António Emiliano

Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list