registration requests re Portuguese
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Sat Apr 11 13:20:23 CEST 2015
On 04/10/2015 05:39 PM, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
> Yury scripsit:
>> I try to follow this discussion, if only to understand the necessity of
>> combining the ruleset denoting suffix (like, "-ao1990" or "-abl1943")
>> with anything more than language prefix "pt-".
>> I might be not getting the big picture here, but isn't the
>> language+ruleset absolutely unambiguous already?
> It is not, because there are differences between national versions of
> Portuguese that are not orthographic: grammar, vocabulary, and the forms
> of the second person pronoun, for example. If all forms of English
> were to adopt a single orthography, there would still be many
> differences between the national variants such as GB, US, IE, AU, IN.
Isn't any <orthography> just a set of rules, put into the identifiable
set of paper books, electronic documents, etc.?
People never actually use 100% pure <orthography Mk.X>. The deviations
may form their own identifiable ruleset, and so on.
> So it is useful to be able to write "pt-PT-ao1990" or "pt-BR-ao1990"
> to distinguish between different editions (translations) of a single
> work. This is not disputed. The issue at hand is to determine
Isn't it missing the mark completely? The edition/translations has
responsibles, publishing attributes, ratification date, whatever.
There may be several re-issues of the same standard. How do you account
for those in the scheme you cite?
More information about the Ietf-languages