Portuguese subtags (Was; Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 6/8)
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 15 02:56:50 CEST 2011
Hi, again Antonio, thanks for your information.
I wish I could be of more help with the whole issue of the 1990 as the 1911 and 1945 subtags seem to be basically resolved (or are they? is it still being disputed whether both of these are needed?) However all I've managed to do is to verify that perhaps what Fiorin said (the French text) really does not dispute what your 1945 document says.
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Tue Sep 13 23:13:01 CEST 2011
> (why does this list not recognize Latin-1 precomposed characters?)
These came through.
> On 2011/09/13, at 20:55, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:56:30 -0400
> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Portuguese subtags (Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue
> 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
> 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.
O.k. I went and read the 1945 link that you all have posted
Yes, as best as I can glean with my limited Portuguese reading skills,
this document does refer back to 1943 and 1940 agreements.
In 1943 and 1940 agreements, the 1931 agreement was "published" or "republished" (according to the 1945 document above).
Also section 1.2 of the 1945 document says that the 1945 agreement is in conformance with "Instrucoes para a Organizacao do Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa" spelled out in 1943 by the "Academia Brasileira de Letras".
Essentially what Fiorin says is that the 1931 agreement was re-published in 1943 (in Brazil apparently; it was apparently, according to another source -- see below -- republished in Portugal in 1940);
Fiorin mentions that it was republished under the "Convention Luso-Brazilian /Luso-Bresilienne" so I finally googled that convention and found a tiny bit more about the 1945 spelling reform (more confusion?):
"Pluricentric languages: differing norms in different nations" by Michael G. Clyne:
"In 1940, the Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa published "Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa," based on the 1911 reform"
which apparently had certain modifications introduced in 1920 and 1931 agreements . . .
"The document differed from the 1931 agreement in that it reintroduced 'silent' consonants;
[my note: thus the 1940-1943 agreements were slightly different from 1931, as you say]
then the Academia Brazileira de Letras published its orthography in 1943, "Pegueno Vocabulario Ortografico da Lingua Portuguesa"
According to Clyne,
the 1945 proposal was, although "initially approved in both countries," "poorly received in Brazil," and "Brazil adhered to the 1943 agreement."
[My note again: Brazil's disavowal of this reform 2 years after agreeing to it in 1945 has been previously mentioned by Antonio in the discussion; so this is not new info. for the list]
But 1945 was the date both countries reached an agreement, though a slight variation of it may have ended up being used to some degree in Brazil.
>> 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:
> 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.
That's nice if you find those of course! C: (However it seems what everyone is waiting for now is for everyone to agree on an acceptable dictionary or database of words for the 1990 agreement.)
>> 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
is a history by Antonio de Moraes Silva that's what I found quickly.
> (1789). Like historians of EN do with Samuel Johnson's Dictionary.
> Check this article: http://clp.dlc.ua.pt/Publicacoes/
> Section 7 deals with orthography.
It mentions a couple of 19th century works on that.
My Portuguese reading skills are pretty limited.
> 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.
Hmm, I really know little of Portuguese, particularly pre-1911, except for a few Medieval Gallego Cantigas
(there are at least two that are quite famous; one of these is "Levad 'Ameu," which Yvor Winters has done a passable translation of into English; these had I believe a silent h in between letters, for example in the pronoun "lhi" this text is on the web by the way;
You can always try to get this info together again at another date, if a pre-1911 subtag is in order and you wish to request it.
But right now there's 1990 to be worked out so I leave this to another discussion before I get called "off topic."
(But it's up to you, if you want to try for it; but you seem to be dropping it so I will too.)
Best wishes resolving 1990.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages