Description: I'd like to sugest a PRE-AO (Pre Orthographic Agreement of Portuguese)Portuguese Version of Libre-Office. And i say why: There are MILLIONS of Portuguese People that DON'T AGREE with that AO, because, Portuguese Never were ASKED if they wanted it , or not. So, the IDEA is to give to those Portuguese who don't AGREE(we are the Majority ) with the AO "portuguese" version, the OPTION of having Libre Office in Their/our Real Language. Ps.: Generally , the Portuguese Translation is good, but as it is made "under" the AO agenda, it is an Offense to The Real Portuguese(we are millions) reader, who, in this case, prefers to read it in the English version. Thanks Actual Results: Translate from Portuguese version under the "orthographic agreement" to the Portuguese PRE-"orthographic agreement" Expected Results: Idem Reproducible: Didn't try User Profile Reset: No Additional Info:
*** Bug 126175 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi, are you talking about the User Interface or about the spellchecking?
(In reply to sophie from comment #2) > Hi, are you talking about the User Interface or about the spellchecking? Hello Sophie, thanks for answering. I really don't know which one... But, please, read this: I'd like to sugest a PRE-AO (Pre Orthographic Agreement of Portuguese)Portuguese Version of Libre-Office. And i say why: There are MILLIONS of Portuguese People that DON'T AGREE with that AO, because, Portuguese Never were ASKED if they wanted it , or not. So, the IDEA is to give to those Portuguese who don't AGREE(we are the Majority ) with the AO "portuguese" version, the OPTION of having Libre Office in Their/our Real Language.
Equally which locale? The pt-PT (European), pt-BR (Brzilian) we currently support with UI and dictonary (and presumably AO compliant). Or for distinct pre-AO for all "Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa" (CPLC) [1] member locales that in large part driving the AO standardization? =-ref-= [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Portuguese_Language_Countries
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #4) > Equally which locale? > > The pt-PT (European), pt-BR (Brzilian) we currently support with UI and > dictonary (and presumably AO compliant). > > Or for distinct pre-AO for all "Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa" > (CPLC) [1] member locales that in large part driving the AO standardization? > > =-ref-= > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Portuguese_Language_Countries PLease, it's very simple what i am saying...it's just an Option of PRE-AO Portuguese, for those who wish to have Libre-Office in PRE-AO Portuguese. You(L.O.) don't have that option. Even Microsoft Office Have that option. Thanks.
Personally, I'm not a fan. Not as an objection to supporting non-Standards body compliant localizations or archaic forms, rather over issues of implementation and sustainability. The history and applicability of the changes are widley known [1][2]. By locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as irrelevant. Support becomes an academic endeavor. As to localization supporting CPLC members, their "Instituto Internacional da Língua Portuguesa" (IILP) seems to be becoming the CPLC's standards body, and provides localization / orthographic variations [3] appropriate in context of the AO. Fertile ground for preparing "standards" (CPLC) compliant localization. IMHO => WF (of course motivated volunteers with an interest are always welcome to tackle it). =-ref-= [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990 [3] http://voc.iilp.cplp.org/
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > Personally, I'm not a fan. Not as an objection to supporting non-Standards > body compliant localizations or archaic forms, rather over issues of > implementation and sustainability. > > The history and applicability of the changes are widley known [1][2]. By > locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as > irrelevant. Support becomes an academic endeavor. > > As to localization supporting CPLC members, their "Instituto Internacional > da Língua Portuguesa" (IILP) seems to be becoming the CPLC's standards body, > and provides localization / orthographic variations [3] appropriate in > context of the AO. Fertile ground for preparing "standards" (CPLC) compliant > localization. > > IMHO => WF > > (of course motivated volunteers with an interest are always welcome to > tackle it). > > =-ref-= > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography > [2] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990 > [3] http://voc.iilp.cplp.org/ Ok.I understand and know all of that. My simple question is: Is it possible to have the PRE-AO Portuguese version of L.O. or not? If so, i am prepared to Translate L.O. to PRE-AO Portuguese version. THanks
(In reply to Rogério Maciel from comment #7) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > > Personally, I'm not a fan. Not as an objection to supporting non-Standards > > body compliant localizations or archaic forms, rather over issues of > > implementation and sustainability. > > > > The history and applicability of the changes are widley known [1][2]. By > > locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as > > irrelevant. Support becomes an academic endeavor. > > > > As to localization supporting CPLC members, their "Instituto Internacional > > da Língua Portuguesa" (IILP) seems to be becoming the CPLC's standards body, > > and provides localization / orthographic variations [3] appropriate in > > context of the AO. Fertile ground for preparing "standards" (CPLC) compliant > > localization. > > > > IMHO => WF > > > > (of course motivated volunteers with an interest are always welcome to > > tackle it). > > > > =-ref-= > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography > > [2] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990 > > [3] http://voc.iilp.cplp.org/ > > Ok.I understand and know all of that. > > My simple question is: > > Is it possible to have the PRE-AO Portuguese version of L.O. or not? > > If so, i am prepared to Translate L.O. to PRE-AO Portuguese version. > > THanks " ... By locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as > irrelevant. ..." And by-the-way, it's not a claim but a fact. Furthermore, that abject, anti-Democratic Tyrannic IMPOSITION to The Portuguese People of the DESTRUCTION of a (Our)Language that has 9 Centuries IT WILL BE STOPPED. Mark my words.
Please, stay calm, Stuart has only tried to help make your request understandable and we do care only about standards and technical issue here, the rest is out of the scope of our open source project and volunteer community. If you want to translate LibreOffice, here is the process: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice_Localization_Guide If you want to extend or create a dictionary: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Dictionaries Some other projects have solved this issue by creating a dictionary respecting the 1990 reform and user chose which one he/she wants to apply to LibreOffice.
(In reply to sophie from comment #9) Yes, thank you Sophie. Was going to say that if a suitable language code can be constructed--no reason a UI translation and spelling dictionary generated for support of legacy (pre-AO) usage. @Eike, could you suggest a language code for pt-PT pre-AO? As that appears to be the extent of this request.
(In reply to sophie from comment #9) > Please, stay calm, Stuart has only tried to help make your request > understandable and we do care only about standards and technical issue here, > the rest is out of the scope of our open source project and volunteer > community. > If you want to translate LibreOffice, here is the process: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice_Localization_Guide > If you want to extend or create a dictionary: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Dictionaries > Some other projects have solved this issue by creating a dictionary > respecting the 1990 reform and user chose which one he/she wants to apply to > LibreOffice. Thanks.I am very calm. I was just stating a fact, but it had nothing to do with Stuart or anyone else in L.O. «... Some other projects have solved this issue by creating a dictionary > respecting the 1990 reform and user chose which one he/she wants to apply to > LibreOffice.» I clicked the links but i couldn't found where to "...chose which one he/she wants to apply to LibreOffice. » ...?!
(In reply to Rogério Maciel from comment #11) > > I clicked the links but i couldn't found where to "...chose which one he/she > wants to apply to LibreOffice. » ...?! See here for an example: https://grammalecte.net/ Go to Multi-dictionnaires section, in the screenshot, you can check which dictionaries to use: Classical, 1990 reform or both. This is shipped with LibreOffice FR version. You'll have to create a spellchecker in your language and use the sources of Grammalecte (GPLv3) if you want to achieve the same.
Not clear if it will be more of an annoyance for pt_PT users hoping for pre-AO orthography, but if the updated spell checker of bug 126362 gets merged that might provide some relief. =-ref-= https://github.com/TiagoSantos81/PortugueseLibreOfficeExtension
Hello! It was me who suggested Tiago Santos's pt_PT speller since the Minho University guys take ages to update their version. Regarding the "pre" and "post" reform, years ago I asked in a LO channel on IRC if both could be supported and a developer said he added a special language code to differentiate from "pre" and "post", so I was wondering if one could do like Mozilla and accept both spellers (basically the Portuguese word twice n the list with "(Pre-AO)" for the prereform or something like that).
To me, this issue seems more like a political discussion rather than linguistic one. I'm not in favour of adding new localizations which are not officially recognized...
Around 5+ years ago I suggested in the LO channel to allow support both for pre and post pt_PT reform. Someone looked at the official language codes standards and said they added support for it. However, someone must copy both pre and post reform spellers into Gerrit and an administrator or developer must make possible to identify each. Mozilla allows both pre and post reform. The most up-to-date Portuguese spellers were forked by Tiago Santos: https://github.com/TiagoSantos81/PortugueseLibreOfficeExtension
Chat from IRC: <marcoagpinto> adding a label in the combobox if the spellers is pre reform just like in Mozilla <marcoagpinto> adding a label in the combobox if the speller is pre reform just like in Mozilla* <x1sc0> marcoagpinto, do you think it's a valid enhancement ? <marcoagpinto> x1sc0: yes, tons of people are still using pre-reform <x1sc0> marcoagpinto, or is it just a political topic ? <marcoagpinto> also, Office 365 accepts both <x1sc0> ok, moving to NEW then, thanks <marcoagpinto> it is a valid topic thus, moving to NEW
For clarification (btw, "Someone looked at the official language codes standards and said they added support for it." could really had indicated what the actual code tags would be and where to find), the IANA registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry has Type: variant Subtag: ao1990 Description: Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990 (Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990) Added: 2015-05-06 Prefix: pt Prefix: gl Comments: Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1990 but not brought into effect until 2009 So a valid language tag in addition to 'pt' (or pt-PT locale) would be pt-ao1990 (or pt-PT-ao1990 locale). There's also Type: variant Subtag: colb1945 Description: Portuguese-Brazilian Orthographic Convention of 1945 (Convenção Ortográfica Luso-Brasileira de 1945) Added: 2015-05-06 Prefix: pt Comments: Portuguese orthography conventions established in 1945, generally in effect until 2009. This reform was not ratified in Brazil. I deduce that for Portuguese (not in Brazil) orthography valid tags are pt-ao1990 and pt-colb1945, and just 'pt' or pt-PT is assuming current orthography pt-ao1990. Fwiw, the https://github.com/TiagoSantos81/PortugueseLibreOfficeExtension uses the utterly wrong tag pt-AO, which means Portuguese in Angola..
Created attachment 157108 [details] Screenshot of both pt_PT spellers in Thunderbird Hello! Here is how Thunderbird looks like with both Portuguese spellers (prereform and reform) installed.
TLDR: Whether one likes it or not (and I do NOT like it) teachers, students, academics and all public entities MUST write with the prescribed new agreement, which LibreOffice actually uses. All the rest is free to use any spelling standard they wish to. LibreOffice is already using the correct version, so no change is recommended. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was called to attention for this discussion recently (https://github.com/TiagoSantos81/PortugueseLibreOfficeExtension/issues/8). While I do agree with the general sentiment that the Orthographic Agreement does not feel like a positive change, the fact is that NOW, all students and people writing for public entities are required to do so in the "state mandated spelling", i.e. Orthographic Agreement of 1990, the pos-AO agreement. While I would not bat an eye for the public sector that has the resources to finance their own spelling solutions, in the last decade, all Portuguese students are required to write texts with the new spelling for school work or academia. Those are the formal writing situations that actually require a specific spelling and are evaluated by it. Newspapers nowadays even allow their contributors to choose which spelling they are abiding by, as long as they are consistent with it throughout the text. As the 'de facto' standard is the pos-AO spelling, which was used (correctly) by LibreOffice, I promoted the change for that spelling in LanguageTool, three years ago, something that is well explained in https://github.com/languagetool-org/languagetool/issues/96. Ideally, LibreOffice will allow language variant codes, just like we see in Grammalecte. If not, in LibreGrammar I started to use pt-PO as the code for the old agreement, since it does not clash with the current (imposed) standard. All other arguments are emotional, and should be disregarded in any discussion asserting itself as reasonable or logical.
Just to add that the solution of adding a tweak for variants referred by Marco is the ideal solution, but it needs to be implemented. LibreOffice would make it easy to apply to any language if it parses a second hyphen in the dictionary name as a variant separator.
@Eike > Fwiw, the https://github.com/TiagoSantos81/PortugueseLibreOfficeExtension uses the utterly wrong tag pt-AO, which means Portuguese in Angola. Officially speaking, Angola did not approve the AO90, so official documentation in Angola abides by the agreement of 1945, the old one that is comon to Portugal Portugal, so that 'utterly wrong' is just... plain wrong or just misinformed. ;)
Angolan Portuguese (pt-PT-pre-AO <=> pt-AO) and other variants https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugu%C3%AAs_angolano#Ortografia