In a time when, from the decolonization process has seen the increase of the importance of the languages \u200b\u200bof former colonial powers, here is a recent news both singular and interesting. But if it is just common sense that the language of a former colonial power abide by the canons of standard spelling and its former colony, here is the case with the Portuguese.
Parliament recently approved an agreement in Lisbon spelling of the eight countries in the world where Portuguese is spoken (in addition to Portugal and Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe) formalizing the removal of some letters, according to the Brazilian inflection that are lost in the current pronunciation.
Although it is not a radical change, it was foreseeable that in the process of unification of the Portuguese language Lusitanian had to give up, do not count as more than 10 million speakers, compared with more than 200 million Brazilians (as much as 91% of all Portuguese speakers in the world).
If this reform provides for uniformity of telematics research and facilitation of international legal language, from a personal perspective I do not consider this policy over-permissive nature. I think rather it is an attitude that respects the real requirements of an idiom, made on the basis of effective use of language (a majority of Brazilian inflection), which on one hand can facilitate dialogue between the Lusitanian and Brazilian and the other allows the language to evolve naturally.
This contrasts radically from the current policy of suppression against the French Government of the Caribbean Creole languages, which have developed through a mangled the French language mixed with elements of grammar in West Africa, due to the slave trade . It is clear that a similar institutional approach prevents the development of a natural language. In response to the justification of Paris, based on the presumed purity of the French language, it can be argued that the language of Baudelaire was developed by crippled with elements of classical Latin language of the Franks.
Finally, I believe that the tax reform the government of Lisbon can not be readily applied to the case of South America against the Castilian of Madrid as the Latin American landscape has many internal inconsistencies.
Parliament recently approved an agreement in Lisbon spelling of the eight countries in the world where Portuguese is spoken (in addition to Portugal and Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe) formalizing the removal of some letters, according to the Brazilian inflection that are lost in the current pronunciation.
Although it is not a radical change, it was foreseeable that in the process of unification of the Portuguese language Lusitanian had to give up, do not count as more than 10 million speakers, compared with more than 200 million Brazilians (as much as 91% of all Portuguese speakers in the world).
If this reform provides for uniformity of telematics research and facilitation of international legal language, from a personal perspective I do not consider this policy over-permissive nature. I think rather it is an attitude that respects the real requirements of an idiom, made on the basis of effective use of language (a majority of Brazilian inflection), which on one hand can facilitate dialogue between the Lusitanian and Brazilian and the other allows the language to evolve naturally.
This contrasts radically from the current policy of suppression against the French Government of the Caribbean Creole languages, which have developed through a mangled the French language mixed with elements of grammar in West Africa, due to the slave trade . It is clear that a similar institutional approach prevents the development of a natural language. In response to the justification of Paris, based on the presumed purity of the French language, it can be argued that the language of Baudelaire was developed by crippled with elements of classical Latin language of the Franks.
Finally, I believe that the tax reform the government of Lisbon can not be readily applied to the case of South America against the Castilian of Madrid as the Latin American landscape has many internal inconsistencies.
