Portuguese subtags (was Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 16)

[António H F P A Emiliano - FCSH/UNL]

Hello.

On 2011/09/16, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:02:13 -0700
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Portuguese subtags (was: RE: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104,
> 	Issue 15)
>
> Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) <ah dot emiliano at fcsh dot unl
> dot pt> wrote:
>
> As a native English speaker, I didn't have any problems with the  
> English
> in these proposals.

OK. So what does 'Minister's Council Resolution' mean in English?

Is it a resolution issued/put forward by the council of a minister?
Which minister in this particular case?
What does council mean in this context?
Is it a group of advisors?
Or is it a formal gathering of close collaborators or subordinates?
If the council is an advisory group or a formal body of collaborators  
how can it issue resolutions?
Usw.

>> I strongly object to the reference to an "official vocabulary": there
>> is no such thing. There is an online database that contains errors
>> and typos. Furthermore it is not a stable resource and no complete
>> wordlist can be extracted from it. There are at least two
>> commercially available dictionaries in print that could be used as
>> references, provided that the proposal mentions i) that these
>> dictionaries do not coincide 100%, and ii) that these dictionaries do
>> not fulfil the stipulation of the 1990 Treaty.
>
> The argument seems to be that without a stable, definitive, error-free
> and typo-free reference, this is not a variation worthy of tagging.  I
> don't think there is general consensus for that position.  Look  
> through
> the variant subtags in the Registry and you will find many which  
> are not
> specified to this level of precision.

I don't really care about other variant subtags: as a Portuguese  
professional linguist and Professor of Portuguese Linguistics I just  
want this particular proposal to be well written and well conceived.  
I accept the need for a subtag <1990aolp> (I even proposed its final  
designation). However I cannot ignore the fact that there is not a  
single full specification for the orthography that it encodes.

>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:50:09 +0200
>>> From: Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos.be>
>>> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
>>> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
>>>
>
>> There are no authoritative dictionaries for the 1990 reform. No well-
>> known publications.
>
> I don't think there are any truly authoritative dictionaries for  
> Scouse
> or Boontling, either.

We are discussing here a major world language and a very  
controversial reform that has yet to be fully implemented 21 years  
after its official approval. I say this with all due respect to minor  
language variants, of course.

> I don't know Portuguese, so I can't comment on the worthiness of these
> proposals from a linguistic perspective.  But this is starting to feel
> like an effort to use legal technicalities to reject the proposals on
> the basis of not liking the reforms.

I resent that. Please read the preceding messages.

> I hope I am reading the situation
> wrong.

You are IMHO.

> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:55:03 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags (was: RE: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol
> 	104,	Issue 15)
>
> Em 16-09-2011 06:05, Philip Newton escreveu:

> People seem to get sidetracked by political issues, like whether the
> linguistic community likes a change or not, more than if there are
> references or if the ortography change is relevant. Those eventually
> appeared in the discussion

I do not agree. Absolutely. I am a vocal opponent to this reform. I  
think it is a shambles, a fraud, a crime (this is my first and last  
nonlinguistic appraisal in this discussion of the matter under  
scrutiny). I have participated in this discussion with total  
fairness. I have stuck to facts, like for instance the fact that  
there is no official specification of the reform. This is a fact. If  
this group does not deem this fact to be relevant move on. I have not  
raised a single political issue in this discussion and I have not  
found any political issues being raised by any of the participants.

I strongly oppose (with facts) that such an important subtag be  
associated to such a unworthy and problematic reference like the  
online resource referred to in previous messages. I have suggested  
alternatives (printed dictionaries).

>
Best regards. - A.