From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I propose that IB Portuguese be spelled similarly to the pseudo-etymological norm that was current *here* until 1911, that is, writing

  • phthisica for tísica
  • technico for técnico
  • fructo for fruto
  • typo for tipo
  • allemão for alemão

etc. In fact, the IBWiki Main Page in Portuguese uses such a spelling convention.

Furthermore, tu and vós should always be used as the 2nd-person pronouns.

I would appreciate comments on this.

Kyrmse 10:46, 31 October 2005 (PST)

I don't see any problem. Why did it change here? Why wouldn't it change there? BoArthur

I don't know anything about Portuguese, but I'd say: long live the small differences! --IJzeren Jan 11:46, 31 October 2005 (PST)
My primary intention was exactly the one praised by Jan: the small differences that make IB so peculiar (and yet so similar). But there are also other reasons, e. g. the fact that Xliponian already is a Romance language with a reformed, phonemic orthography (more on the reform some day, maybe); the fact that French spelling is still largely etymological, which seems to bother no one (except learners of course); the great discussion that arose the other day on modes of Modern IB English; the "long s" still in use in IB German, ... Let's say: other etymological spelling precedents in Ill Bethisad. And BoArthur, it díd change *here*, but is still more different between Brasil and Portugal than English between GB and the US, IMHO. Greetings and thanks for the replies - Kyrmse 04:39, 1 November 2005 (PST)
Personal tools