Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

joao at joao at
Tue Mar 24 23:21:12 CET 2015

Martin wrote:
> <aside>
> A completely different way to see this is to look at the 1990 accord as
> acknowledging the variety of Portuguese (my guess is that the spelling
> difference e.g. between  “fato” and “facto”  results from an
> underlying
> pronunciation difference). The idea that everybody writes the way they
> speak, i.e. differently if they speak differently, is a very old one. It
> has been out of fashion since the nation-state and 'standard'
> orthographies became popular, and it may look like a nightmare to school
> teachers and copy editors, but it may be one valid way to acknowledge
> both the commonality as well as the variation of the language.
> </aside>
The rule in AO1990 is that unspoken letters are not to be written (ex:
baptismo -> batismo, excepção -> exceção). Facto/fato is a special case
where in Portugal you actually ready the 'c', but not in Brazil
(generically, there are regionalisms for which this statement is not 100%

Best regards,

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list