Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 8

António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at
Tue Sep 13 23:13:01 CEST 2011



(why does this list not recognize Latin-1 precomposed characters?)

On 2011/09/13, at 20:55, ietf-languages-request at wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:56:30 -0400
> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at>
> To: <ietf-languages at>
> Subject: Portuguese subtags (Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue
> 	6)
> Message-ID: <SNT142-W47B40DDB6F5E3DF7FCD0F5B3050 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>> No. 1945 was the official recognition of the 1943 proposals.
> Hmm, I read something different in Fiorin's text.  Thanks for your  
> information.
> 1931. En 1943, est sign?e la Convention Luso-Br?silienne, qui a r? 
> tabli l?accord
> de 1931.")

This does not seem to match what is stated in the 1945 decree about  
1931 and 1943.

> But in any case, 1931 not 1943 is the date of the accord in  
> question and what you say says that virtually the 1931 changes are  
> essenially the same as the 1911 changes; this is exactly what  
> Fiorin says.
> So I do not see a problem with a 1911 and no 1931 subtag.


> (Antonio may have more correct info than Fiorin's then on 1943?  I  
> can't easily read the Portuguese at Wikipedia but it does seem that  
> Wikipedia may concur to some degree with Antonio -- I think it says  
> that 1940 and 1943 publications after the 1931 agreement meant  
> continued divergences between Brazil and Portugal which were  
> resolved in 1945; please correct me if it does not say this:
> fico_de_1943#Hist.C3.B3ria

The preamble to the 1945 decree sums up all the reforms up to that  
date. I would dare to say it's our most reliable source. I still have  
to locate the minutes of the 43 Conference/Convention.

> 1943 is not an important date in any case; that much is clear from  
> both Fiorin and Wikipedia.)

Right. Ditto.

>> Vianna was one of the 2 masterminds behind the reform.
> Thanks again Antonio for your information.

Gonçalves Vianna, which was renowned phoneticist (whom Henry Sweet  
occasionally consulted with) and Gonçalves Abreu (a pioneer of  
Sankrit studies) were the main promotors of the reform. But the  
committee that issued the actual reform that was included in the 1911  
decree included many distingued scholars.
>> 1945 is a milestone (BR adhered to the 1945 reform, but disavowed it
>> 2 years later).
>> 1990 has yet to be implemented but assuming that it will is a major
>> reform.
>> All the other post-1911 'reforms' are minor adjustments.
> Except 1945?


>> pre1911

> Are there many documents written in this orthography on the web?

Yes. See GoogleBooks.

We cannot precisely date an inception date for Portuguese  
orthography. We can use a conventional date as terminus post quem  
which is the publication of António de Moraes Silva's dictionary  
(1789). Like historians of EN do with Samuel Johnson's Dictionary.

Check this article: 
Section 7 deals with orthography.
In another article T. Verdelho clearly states that Moraes' work  
played a fundamental role in stabilizing Portuguese orthography.

Summing up: during the time period 1789-1911 there was a noncodified  
orthography. I would be more cautious and say that from the 1810's or  
1820's on we can speak of a Portuguese orthography. Prior to that  
there simply was no orthography as we know it. The concept was around  
but the actual practice of scribes and printers was not orthographic.

>> 1911bou - Bases da Ortografia Unificada
>> 1945colb - Conven??o Ortogr?fica Luso-Brasileira
>> 1990aolp - Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua Portuguesa
>> I confess that I am not very comfortable with the idea of suddenly
>> having all these PT subtags. But my main argument remains: if you
>> introduce a 1990 subtag then you MUST perforce also have 1945 and  
>> 1911.

> Michael Everson basically supports your arguments here it seems.
> Peter's earlier post I think stresses that we need just the subtags  
> for the orthographies that we are likely to encounter on the net.
> (Though of course if there is any document in the pre-1911  
> orthography on the net at all, and you want a subtag to tag it,  
> then request one, of course.)

The number of available pre-1911 texts online is growing. I can vouch  
for that.

>> There is still a potential snag regarding the 1990 subtag. I have
>> addressed this issue in my earliest comments and have not read a
>> satisfactory reply or suggestion. What should the meaning of the date
>> be?
>> The 1990 reform was signed in 1990 by representatives of the
>> governments of 7 PT-speaking countries; it was approved by the
>> Portuguese Parliament in 1991; it was ratified by the Portuguese
>> president also in 1991; ; it lay dormant for almost 20 years; it was
>> officially introduced in PT in 2008; it will in principle be fully
>> enforced in PT in 2014 or 2015. I sincerely hope that no one uses
>> 1990aolp as a simple chronological tag (1911 and 1945 are
>> chronological tags, like the German tags -- they refer to the date of
>> official approval and implementation; 1990 does not).

> Hmm.  So is any other name possible?

Don't think so, no.
My remark only serves the purpose to alert the participants to the  
aboslute need of a very clear wording of the proposal.

> Or does "1990" sufficiently delineate this orthography for all  
> concerned?

Yes, it does.

> (I don't think it has to be quite parallel with the other subtags  
> in how it designates an orthography; that would be nice but I don't  
> think it's necessary; my two cents.)
> Thanks!
> (My apologies if I've added to the confusion; I write this hoping  
> to sort it out a bit.)

Thank YOU, C.E.!

Best regards. - A.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list