[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About pt_BR and pt_PT translations

Hash: SHA1

On 10/25/2005 04:13 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:
>>	pt_PT is the Portuguese used in Portugal, pt_BR is the Brazilian
>>Portuguese used in Brasil. We have several differences in the language
>>context, specially in the computer area.
> Let me add a comment and please note that this comment only reflect my
> own opinion and that only.
> The pt/pt_BR thing has always annoyed me.


> First of all, this is not pt_PT vs pt_BR.....thie is "pt" vs
> "pt_BR". Even though Portuguese is mostly spoken in Portugal and
> Brazil, there are other places in the world where the language is
> alive and used, and there are other pt_* locales in glibc.

	And let me add that it is not a "fight", I spoke with a
some translators and contributors and they share the feeling that
pt and pt_BR are differente languages. I checked the maillists
and looks like that in the past some people already raised this

> Up to now, I have always hear and read from Portuguese and Brazilian
> users that both languages are different.
> This is actually NOT what all ethnological data mention (see
> www.ethnologue.com for instance). Even though it is often mentioned
> that the way to speak the language differs in BR and PT, the language
> is itself always considered as the very same language. ISO 639 has no
> special code for "Brazilian" while this standard often makes very
> specific differences in languages variants, especially when it comes
> at ISO 639-3 (just count the various English or French creoles in the
> standard).

	I really don't know why there is no code for "Brazilian", we
speed portuguese, for sure, and in a lot of ways it is almost the
same language, but as you said, the users face it as two different

	Maybe people involved with standards in our country do not
worry about ISO codes and stuff related, maybe we should let them
know that is is a good idea to have this.

	But, I ask you to consider the "de facto" reality, where
pt speakers and pt_BR speakers consider their languages different
(and I would like to make a remark for the computer area, it is
even more different).

> So, I have always regretted that the translation effort is currently
> splitted in two teams. The Spanish speakers *did* manage to go through
> their cultural differences between Spain and Latin America and they
> continue to work with only one team and one translation set, even
> though they sometimes have hard times to agree on terminology.

	But the translation effort is not entirely splitted, we are
working together in -l10n-portuguese, althought I rarely saw only
pt messages, in the majority of the time I say pt_BR mails.

	I checked the spanish archives and it is not that simple,
in some ways, they have the same differences (file, ficheiro, arquivo)
and they [1]manage to solve it choosing a standard/pattern/reference,
which means that if we do the same now, propably the pt_BR will be
the reference and we lose in quality and variety.


> The cultural background is probably the same here with some remainings
> from a colonial past which induces strong feelings and doesn't help.

	Nope, it is not. I'm not basing my arguments on the colonial
past, I'm really basing it on the feedback that I received from users
and other contributors.

> Anyway, I'm afraid that we'll never see a single Portuguese
> translation in Free Software (also not in commercial software) but in
> that case, people, just work for international standards to recognize
> "Brazilian" as a different language and bring it its own ISO code.

	I'm not sure who I should contact to try to get this (ISO stuff),
but I will see if it possible to find some help in other project/areas.

> But, in the meantime, I don't really see the point in splitting things
> more than they are. There are areas where both translation teams work
> together and it seems to me that this is better than a total split.

	I don't know of any areas where pt and pt_BR are _working_
together, I know of areas where they share resources, but you don't
see translations taking care of the other language and that is the
reason to raise the question. We are already working splitted, just
sharing resources.

	Anyway, I just want to propose a model so we could solve
the doubts and get a clearer l10n model for pt and pt_BR. :-) I
will stay with debian-i18n decision, until somebody raise the
question again (or perhaps when somebody has more arguments). :o)

	Kind regards,

- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: