[00:18:22] Agreed [01:28:18] I started learning French around the year 2000. Had the language undergone a major change just ten years prior? [08:45:54] Small changes like "boîte"@fr -> "boite"@fr-1990 (re @harej: I started learning French around the year 2000. Had the language undergone a major change just ten years prior?) [08:53:43] Just some minor spelling changes, like some hyphenated words, plurals of composed nouns, circumflex accents, changing some accents on the E (é/è) to better reflect pronunciation, and some spellings were adjusted to be a bit more coherent or simple (re @harej: I started learning French around the year 2000. Had the language undergone a major change just ten years prior?) [08:54:05] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_French_orthography#Rectifications_of_1990 [09:04:56] The accents were used to reflect etymology. For example, "ê" was "es". (re @AracasDragon: Just some minor spelling changes, like some hyphenated words, plurals of composed nouns, circumflex accents, changing some accen...) [09:06:00] What they did is that they removed accents where they are useless for the pronunciation regardless of their etymology. [10:01:08] spelling reforms are actually not that uncommon, english is unusual in being so resistant to spelling changes (re @harej: I started learning French around the year 2000. Had the language undergone a major change just ten years prior?) [10:12:59] Talking available languages... I tried to put lots of labels and descriptions in for Australian English, but it was laborious, because I couldn't choose it as my default language in global preferences. But I guess that's a bigger conversation than within Wikifunctions. [10:14:03] you shouldn't really need to duplicate labels like that though [11:25:54] If I wrote my labels in Australian English first, wouldn't we want them duplicated in "English"? [11:38:16] ideally we'd move it to english if it would be the same, and have language variants automatically fall back to the language they're part of, rather than duplicating it under english [11:39:16] (and I'm saying that as someone who normally uses en-gb) [11:53:37] French is also kind of resistant, a lot of people and institution still don't want to apply the 1990 reform 🫥 (re @Nikki: spelling reforms are actually not that uncommon, english is unusual in being so resistant to spelling changes) [11:57:15] we've always had a problem in wikidata with en-gb and en-ca getting out of sync with en (and the same for other languages with variants too). copying things to every variant even when they're the same creates a *lot* of duplication too (e.g. something like 10% of all descriptions in wikidata are for language variants). it would be good to avoid that with wikifunctions [11:59:38] you at least *have* the académie française though even if people ignore them 😆 (re @Nicolas: French is also kind of resistant, a lot of people and institution still don't want to apply the 1990 reform 🫥) [12:00:48] TBH, I wish we didn't, the Académie is strange and not always good (and there is not one linguist in it!!) (re @Nikki: you at least *have* the académie française though even if people ignore them 😆) [12:08:49] I don't know where english would even start with trying to improve the spelling... brits would probably reject proposed changes because *tradition* and americans would probably reject proposed changes because *freedom* [12:12:38] and it would need to be country-specific, because brits wouldn't accept american proposals out of principle, and americans would most likely think british proposals don't make sense because of differences in pronunciation (and no idea about all the other english-speaking places) [12:18:42] Nikki funny how it's close to what happened to the 1990 French reform (which was an international effort and is now mainly common in Belgium and Canada, while France want to keep *tradition* and Switzerland being neutral about it) [12:19:20] switzerland being neutral about it, how swiss of them :D [12:21:13] anyway, fr-1990 wouldn't be a valid language tag, so if we want to tag that we should use something like fr-x-1990... I'm surprised nobody has registered a subtag for it [12:25:08] if someone were to propose one it would presumably be accepted since there's orthography subtags for various other languages already, the problem is just getting someone to do it [12:27:02] Well technically the 1990 french spelling reform didn't invalidate the previous spellings, it only made new spellings preferred but the older ones are still valid [12:28:28] and that's the original sin I think... [12:28:29] 33 years later and a lot of people don't even know about it (re @AracasDragon: Well technically the 1990 french spelling reform didn't invalidate the previous spellings, it only made new spellings preferred ...) [12:29:12] it should have been something like "both are valid for X years then move on to the new orthograph" [12:32:19] strange indeed (I was wrong but pretty there was a subtag) [12:32:20] also some people argue that the 1990 should simply be implicitly fr and that the old one should be fr-1878 :P (re @Nikki: anyway, fr-1990 wouldn't be a valid language tag, so if we want to tag that we should use something like fr-x-1990... I'm surpri...) [12:35:40] that’s what I was wondering, what would `fr-1990` even mean [12:36:21] subtags make the language tag more specific, so ideally there'd be two subtags (although whether people use fr for one variant and a subtag for the other, or always use subtags, is up to them) [12:36:24] although we do have `de-1996` apparently and I’m not sure if it’s supposed to distinguish from `de(-2006)` or what [12:36:47] de-1901 is the old spellings, de-1996 is the modern spellings [12:38:35] (I know there's been other changes but nobody has tried to register subtags for any other distinctions, I assume because that was the big one and is enough for most people's needs) [12:42:45] for portuguese there's pt-ao1990, pt-colb1945 and pt-br-abl1943, where ao1990 is the 1990 agreement (which is apparently still not fully adopted), colb1945 is the orthography from 1945 that wasn't adopted in brazil and abl1943 is the orthography from 1943 that brazil was using instead [12:50:01] for russian there's ru-luna1918 for the 1917/1918 reforms and ru-petr1708 for the orthography used before then (the tag refers to the petrine reform of 1708)... the year normally means when it came into existence, so the most consistent meaning for fr-(x-)1990 would be the newer spellings [13:06:27] It took me a second to I understand what "luna" refers to :) (re @Nikki: for russian there's ru-luna1918 for the 1917/1918 reforms and ru-petr1708 for the orthography used before then (the tag refers t...) [13:06:51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Lunacharsky [15:07:56] So this is why this is the first I’m hearing of the î in boîte being optional (re @Nicolas: and that's the original sin I think... [15:07:57] 33 years later and a lot of people don't even know about it) [15:30:53] Must confess I fall in this category…was always told « those weird new things are now accepted » but never understood this would become the standard (re @Nicolas: and that's the original sin I think... [15:30:54] 33 years later and a lot of people don't even know about it) [15:44:50] 😊