Talk:Reforms of Portuguese orthography

Dates concerning Brazil
The dates of spelling reforms in Brazil need to be checked. FilipeS 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Consistency of the Orthographic Agreement
The orthographic agreement allows the double spelling for example of "tónico" and "tônico" based on differences in European and Brazilian pronunciation. Given that the "e" in "idéia" is uniformly open in all Brazilian dialects (though not always in Portugal), a similar argument would justify keeping two separate spellings, i.e. "idéia" and "ideia", respectively in Brazil and Portugal. However, the agreement scraps the Brazilian spelling "idéia" and accepts only the European variant "ideia" as correct. That seems inconsistent/contradictory to me !
 * It makes sense if you notice that the difference between ô and ó is phonemic, but the difference between final -éia and final -eia is not phonemic. FilipeS 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Concepção
I deleted the concepção-conceção example since in BP concepção is still used(and the p isn't mute). The original poster probably confuse concepção with concessão(which sounds exactly like conceção, but has a different meaning).Also, I think that in BP molhada only means wet, so I'm not sure if this example should stay in the article.200.233.140.116 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Table corrections
The spelling "aspeto" is not used in Brazil. Brazilians write "aspecto" and pronounce it [aspɛktu] or [aʃpɛktu] (the latter pronunciation is found mostly in Rio de Janeiro and a few other major cities, e.g. Belém do Pará). 200.177.5.94 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal status of the 1990 reform
I am confused about the current legal status of the 1990 orthographic agreement. The article seems to imply that Brazil, Portugal, Cape Verde, and perhaps São Tomé and Principe (?) have already ratified it. Furthermore, the article also says that, following the adoption of the new 2004 protocol, the spelling reform can go into force immediately in those countries where the agreement has already been ratified. However, the article also mentions that there will be an unspecified "transition" period before the reform is fully implemented. As of today then, is it already legal to print books/newspapers using the new spelling rules in countries like Brazil where the agreement has already been ratified ? Shouldn't we consider using the new orthography as the standard in the Portuguese language Wikipedia ?


 * Following up on the topic above, it is worth noting that, even though the French language Wikipedia has not sanctioned yet the 1990 "Rectifications orthographiques du français", the administrators in the French Wikipedia have nonetheless compiled a list of French language articles whose titles would be changed under the new orthography. Shouldn't the Portuguese Wikipedia administrators do the same in preparation for the possible future implementation of the Luso-Brazilian orthographic agreement ?

As with much bureaucracy in Portugal and Brazil, the new orthography is stuck in a state of limbo. See here. FilipeS


 * How long can it really take to compile a new Abridged Orthographic Vocabulary ? Doesn't it suffice to take the older one and change a few words that are affected by the reform ? It seems to me that this is a poor excuse on the part of the Portuguese  to delay the implementation of the Agreement. Anyway, Brazil is moving ahead regardless of Portuguese procrastination and it now looks like the spelling reform will be fully in force in Brazil as early as next year, meaning no more freqüente, idéia, heróico, vôo, dêem, pêra, or pára-quedas, but frequente, ideia, heroico, voo, deem, pera, and paraquedas (we'll have to get used to it !). 200.177.25.244 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? It would be an interesting addition to the article... FilipeS 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, implementation of the reform in Brazil is expected to start next year, see. 161.24.19.82 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unclear
Hello, there is something that I don't understand. Are the Portguese speaking nations Portugal/Africa/Asia going to change there spelling in the to the same Brazilian orthography of 2005 in the future? What is going to or could change in the future with relation till orthography of all Portuguese speaking nations? 217.121.115.175 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, all Portuguese speaking nations are going to change their official orthographies into a new one, different from the current European orthography and from the current Brazilian orthography. To see the changes, read the text of the agreement, available from the External Links section of the article. Regards. FilipeS 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The agreement
It seems to me that with this new agreement the portuguese ortography will be dumber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.173.35 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FilipeS (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of date
"As of January 2005, only Brazil has fulfilled the requirements. On the other hand, Portugal is facing elections, delaying the use of the new spelling reform." The Portuguese elections have since taken place - in Feb 2005 (parliamentary) and in 2006 (presidential). 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Parliament is to vote on the changes on May 15, 2008. (Associated Press) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.23.51 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction/Change of inaccessible external link to 1990 orthographic convention document
The previously provided link to the 1990 orthographic convention has been changed from the IILP website because the file has not been accessible from that site for quite sometime; the link now points to the same document (PDF)on the www.lusografia.org site. 66.130.177.182 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Enlightenment
The article states: "Contrary to neighboring languages such as Spanish or French, whose orthographies were set by language academies during the Enlightenment, Portuguese had no official spelling until the 16th century; authors wrote as they pleased." This makes no sense, when you consider that the French Academy was founded in the 17th century, and that the Enlightenment did not begin until the late 17th century. It may be that French already got an official spelling, but if it did, it was clearly not fixed by its academy, nor by the Enlightenment. Therefore, these sentences make no sense. 31.54.43.87 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)