Language subtag registration for 1990aolp (CEWhitehead) [was Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 17]
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Sat Sep 17 12:54:19 CEST 2011
On 2011/09/17, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:12:12 -0400
> From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Language subtag registration for 1990aolp
> I briefly went to both Publico and Diario de Noticias, after
> reading Antonio's post (Antonio says that "Publico" is not adopting
> the reform).
> (One Note: Regardless of whether or not these newspapers are
> adopting the reform, unfortunatley both "Diario de Noticias" and
> "Publico" sometimes carry the same articles. An example is the
> following article -- the first copy came from "Diario de Noticias;"
> the second from "Publico":
> "O ministro da Educa??o e Ci?ncia, Nuno Crato afirmou hoje em Valpa?
> os que sempre houve professores com contratos a termo de um m?s,
> mas que este ano se verificou uma renova??o autom?tica."
> "O ministro da Educa??o e Ci?ncia, Nuno Crato, afirmou hoje, em
> Valpa?os, que sempre houve professores com contratos a termo de um
> m?s, mas que este ano se verificou uma renova??o autom?tica."
> In this case I guess the spelling is the same both with/without
> implementing the orthographic reform -- is this correct?
Yes, because that quotation has no words affected by the reform.
> But I wonder what what spelling will be used if these newspapers
> opt to carry other identical articles where there are words that
> are not spelled the same way pre- and post-reform? Oh well.)
There is Portuguese news agency called Lusa which has adopted the
reform. Many newspapers opt to quote from Lusa's dispatches about
current events or last minute news without any text editing. Público
and others however always correct the spelling in the Lusa texts.
> I did find another text:
> "Na sequ?ncia de um relat?rio publicado em Abril pelo Tribunal de
> Contas sobre os encargos assumidos e n?o pagos pela Madeira, o INE
> e o BdP avaliaram as contas da regi?o e detectaram que ?as d?vidas
> contra?das desde 2004 e objecto de Acordos de Regulariza??o de D?
> vidas (ADR) em 2008 e 2009 n?o foram registadas como encargos
> assumidos e n?o pagos, n?o tendo sido igualmente comunicadas ?s
> autoridades estat?sticas?."
> This is from Publico (http://economia.publico.pt/noticia/dividas-
> So I do have a question:
> would "
> contra?das" be written without the accent if this were written
> according to the 1990 orthographic reform?
> In any case, my take is that whether there is a suitable reference
> or not, there is clearly a demonstrated need for a subtag for an
> orthograpy if an online newspaper is using it. So no problem there.
> (Also, of course, there is no way that I know of for ietf-languages
> to enforce the agreement, that is to force the creation of a good
> reference vocabulary for the orthography agreed on in the 1990
> So I don't oppose this subtag, not at all. I just have these
> questions, because of all the conversation. Sorry.
> (Also I apologize to Doug if I asked to have additional sources
> listed in the subtag request form itself;
> additional sources can be cited on the list I guess;
> however I did not come up with a good dictionary for Portuguese
> Portuguese that follows the 1990 accord --
> unless of course
> Dicionaria Priberam,
> is acceptable.)
No it is not acceptable. I use that dictionary daily and I have
respect for that company. The problem is that this dictionary
includes several thousand Galician words as if they were PT words
(because there is a so-called Galician Academy for the Portuguese
Language which has accepted the 1990 reform so that may be accepted
as a Portuguese-speaking ... thing). Also Priberam has no stable
form. It is however a respectable resource, which is not the case of
the aforementioned VOP.
There is a good dictionary in print by Porto Editora. There are two
not so good dictionaries by Texto Editora. These latter two were
compiled from materials stolen (yes, stolen) from the Portuguese
Academy by one of the authors of the 1990 reform. However per the
1990 treaty these dictionaries cannot be considered authoritative
references regarding the application of the reform. Until a common
vocabulary is published by all 8 PT-speaking countries there will be
no official specification for the reform. That is the letter and
spirit of the treaty that was signed in 1990.
Best regards. - A.
More information about the Ietf-languages