From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lombard language v Lombard dialects 2 Proposed Lombard Wikipedia 3 No such thing as "Lombard language" 4 Reorganization/rewrite of January 9, 2005 4.1 Number of speakers 4.2 "Lombardic" 4.3 Language vs. Dialect vs. ... 4.4 Rearrangement and sectioning 5 Page title 6 Requested move 6.1 Discussion 7 Requested move 2 7.1 Requested move 2 discussion 8 Lombard wikipedia 9 Siculo-gallic dialects 10 Tone of article deteriorating 11 CH or IT 12 Lombard varieties, Lombard dialects, Lombard idioms, etc. 13 Back to the language issue 14 Requested move 3 14.1 Survey 14.2 Discussion 15 Move to Lombard (language) 16 Thank you

[edit] Lombard language v Lombard dialects

Moved from "Lombard language" as the article stated itself that Lombard is a set of interrelated dialects, not a single language. --Orzetto 10:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what language isn't? Anyway, I really neither second nor oppose the move, I'm not sure what classification would be best. LjL 11:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is a good thing that engineers are interested in language issues (I was an electronic engineer myself, befor becoming a linguist :-) ). But it woudn't be a bad idea to leave the burden of writing articles about linguistics to those who actually have a formal schooling in linguistics as a part of their curriculum... :-)

It surely would not be a bad idea at all - actually, it would be the only reasonable thing to do - for a paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia, however (at least as far as I understand its spirit), allows and encourages everyone to write and edit articles about topics they're interested about. Why should I wait for a linguist to write the article for Milanese, when I can roll my own? This works on Wikipedia (in contrast to a paper encyclopedia) because any linguist who later reads the article can correct anything they find wrong, remove anything that is irrelevant, and add anything that is relevant.

Ok, but what about the information contained in the article _before_ it has been discovered and revised by a linguist? This is actually a problem with any free encyclopedia. JørgenGB 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It is a problem with any free encyclopedia. But I think that Wikipedia thinks that the advantages outweigh the problems! Anyway, there is also the system of tags, which allows putting things like "This article needs to be revised by a specialist" (I don't really know if this particular tag exists, and if it does, it's my fault that I haven't used it); this way, an index of articles needing revision can be (automatically) created. You see, it's not that bad :-)

Oh, and, let's be very honest, how many articles on real paper encyclopedias are actually written by experts? :-\ LjL 14:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you've contributed to Milanese, please ask yourself: if I hadn't created the original "Milanese" article to begin with, would you have done it?

I was planning to do it, yes, and your article gave me the right motivation :-) JørgenGB 15:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I created the original article. You read it. You found errors. You corrected them, and expanded the article. Would the article exist at all, right now, if this process didn't happen? Perhaps it would, but I'm sure you understand that, even if I might be wrong in this particular case, this kind of process is often very useful on Wikipedia.

I agree with you on this point. JørgenGB 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

LjL 21:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern linguists say that a language can also be "a set of interrelated dialects". Speaking of "Lombard language" does neither imply that there is only one single variety of Lombard, nor that there is a Lombard written standard.

For a modern linguist "dialect" and "language" are not very precise terms at all. That is why we prefer to use the neutral term "[language] variety".

The main problem when classifying a language is that

1. we are trying to force into a 1- or 2-dimensional chart a reality with far more dimensions, I would say a matrix with lots of different variables;

2. we are trying to force into a discrete, "digital" description a reality which is in its own nature continuous, "analogic".

Take the example of (standard, high) German, Swiss German and Dutch. Swiss German varieties are neither more "German" nor closer to German than Dutch varieties. Dutch varieties are low German dialects, Swiss German varieties are Upper German dialects. What if some Swiss cantons some day decided to adopt the local Swiss German dialect as their official language? What if the government of Holland some day decided it would be more practical to adopt German as their written language?

quoted from Bollettino Storico Alta Valtellina BSAV 6/2003:

La distinzione tra lingua e dialetto, paradossalmente, è infatti molto poco... linguistica, e spesso connotazioni ideologiche o politiche complicano ulteriormente la questione. Secondo un aforisma che da tempo circola nella comunità dei sociolinguisti, “una lingua è un dialetto con un esercito e una flotta” (yiddish: “a shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot”; non è del tutto certo a chi spetti la prima attribuzione di questo detto, ma la sua prima citazione scritta sembra essere in [Weinreich (1945): 13] e la sua diffusione si deve ai linguisti Max e Uriel Weinreich e Joshua Fishman). Per chi fosse interessato ad approfondire queste tematiche si rimanda a moderni testi di dialettologia e di sociolinguistica, come p. es. [Chambers e Trudgill (1980)] (traduzione italiana [Chambers e Trudgill (1987)]), [Fasold (1984)] e [Fasold (1990)], [Benincà (1996)], [Grassi e al. (2001)], [Grassi e al. (2003)].

JørgenGB 13:32, 09 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, what you said sounds very reasonable. Like I said, I found the move from "Lombard language" to "Lombard dialects" questionable, and you seem to find it questionable as well, looking at both what you wrote (which, if nothing else, points in the direction of "'language' or '(set of) dialects' are both good enough"), and at the fact that you apparently moved the page back to "Lombard language".

So, aren't your critics perhaps wrongly addressed to me, since I was not the one who moved this page from "Lombard language" to "Lombard dialects", and I actually didn't quite like the move? Of course, I'm not a linguist, but while I do take the liberty to contribute to linguistics-related articles, I also do try to be very cautious before changing someone else's words, especially when that someone is a linguist.

My reply was cumulative, and I regret not making it clearer that it was not you I was addressing concerning the language vs. dialect issue. Sorry...

By the time I had finished reading what you wrote, I had quite clear what you were getting at. It's just that I felt a little offended by your "don't write if you're not an expert" line of writing (I'm more of the "don't write if you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about" team). But no worries... articles are progressing, and that's a good thing; then who cares if we don't have exactly the same approach on how an encyclopedia should be made. LjL 14:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you see, it is not always easy to be a linguist :-) ... we actually do experience very often that the general public has a different approach to our branch of knowledge than they have to other sciences... A patient who is not a surgeon or a physician him/herself would never think of lecturing the surgeon who is going to remove his/her appendix on how to perform that operation. And no passenger on a scheduled flight would knock at the cockpit door to tell the captain how he should his/her aircraft. No reasonable entry-level user would tell a system administrator how to configure a computer network. People just accept the surgeon's, the pilot's or the computer scientist's expertise as a matter of fact. It is not always so with linguistics. To us sometimes it seems that, since everybody is able to speak at least one language, then some people feel entitled to say their own meaning on linguistic issues almost as a peer-to-peer discussion, even if they don't have the slightest idea of what they are speaking about. Please do not misunderstand me: this is by no means our case. May be I overreacted on the ground of previous experiences. Doing field research in the Alpine regions of Tessin and Lombardy I have had the opportunity to meet lots of nice and interesting people, but also many so-called "local experts" who in spite of their total lack of linguistic schooling or training would never listen to qualified advice, taking themselves as the only and unquestionable authority. I repeat: this is not our case.--Jorgengb 23:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No entry-level user would tell a sysadmin how to configure the network? Are you sure? Oh, my bad, you said 'reasonable entry-level user...

Yes, after thinking over the matter I decided to add the adjective "reasonable" ;-)--Jorgengb 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, all I'm saying is that "entry-level linguistics users" should "be bold", as Wikipedia says, and write their articles about linguistics. I'm not saying that non-linguists should ever lightheartedly "correct" something a linguist wrote in an article, just because they believe something different.

Perhaps to your relief, anyway, I'm actually quite neutral on the political side of linguistics. I'm neither for promoting Italian "dialects" to full-scale official languages, nor for letting them disappear. I do care about these issues, but I don't have a well-formed opinion, yet.

LjL 00:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To summarize: when dealing with language trees and classification it is often much more a matter of power and politics than of linguistics and dialectology. The main point, however, is to make clear that Lombard varieties are dialects of Lombard, which is Western Romance, and not dialects of Italian. So-called "regional Italian(s)" are, on the other hand, dialects of Italian. "regional Italian" means Italian as it is spoken in a particular region ("region" is here to be intended as "area" and not as "administrative subdivision of the territory of the Italian Republic"). Milan regional Italian is a dialect of Italian, Ticinese Regional Italian (IRT) is another, the regional Italian of Valtellina is still another, etc. They are all influenced by the characteristics of the local Lombard dialects (e.g. when people in the Valtellina pronounce the "g" of "giorno" not as in "George" but rather as "z" in "pleasure"), but nevertheless they remain dialects of Italian. Some people may find it politically convenient to blur the difference between "dialects of Italian" and "dialects of Lombard | Piedmontese | etc.", but this distinction is very clear e.g. according to the Unesco and Ethologue classifications. JørgenGB 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Only one thing: no matter what your (linguistically 100% correct) classification is, in Italy people do call things like Lombard "dialects", and they call "accents" what you call "dialects of Italian". This is wrong, agreed, but it's how we refer to these things, and I'm afraid it's not going to change anytime soon.

This is not entirely correct. Although a Norwegian living in Norway, I do have frequent contacts with the areas concerned (Tessin, the Grisons and Lombardy) and with linguistic literature in Italian. Modern linguists do use the terms "dialect" in the same way as I do. On the other hand, it is also true that non-linguists might ofthe use the terms in the way you describe. Well, to most people a "DNS server", a "Laptop", a "Macintosh" and a "LINUX PC" would just be "computers", wouldn't they?

Yep. But by saying "people call" I meant non-linguists (which, you'll admit, are quite a majority ;-). Certainly I hope that Italian linguists get the terms right! Also see below.

LjL 00:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What does this fact mean for Wikipedia? Not much, but simply that the state of things (i.e. how 99% of Italians view the language/dialect issue) should be mentioned. Expecially on the Italian Wikipedia, but also here.

Notice that an encyclopedia should convey information and deeper knowledge, and not adapt its terminology to that of non-experts. --Jorgengb 23:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It should not adapt the terminology, right. But it should convey information about how terminology is used by the people, even when those people use the wrong terminology. Clearly, it should clearly mark the wrong terminology as such; but it shouldn't wholesale ignore it.

Ok, then we agree on this point: Both the common wrong term and the correct one used by specialists should be mentioned, clearly marking the wrong one.--Jorgengb 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A stupid example: most people think that the speed of computers is measured in MHz. That's not true, MHz (at least those advertized by producers) usually measure the clock speed of CPUs.

LjL 01:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a good encyclopedia should, IMHO, take account of the popular misbelief, by saying something like "Contrary to popular belief, the CPU clock speed isn't proportional to the computer speed; it's just one of the many factors that influence it". Do you see my point?

Yes, I do agree with you --Jorgengb 00:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LjL 00:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a generic article dealing with language issues in Italy could be handy. Something on the lines of "what Italians speak, and what they think they speak, so that you're not too confused when you read articles about it".

LjL 14:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Just to report my own experience with colleagues and friends, I must say that Norwegians think it is strange that Italians use the name "dialects" referring to language varieties completely different from Italian and not even mutually intelligible. In Norway most people speak their own dialect, I mean a dialect of Norwegian, and dialects are mutually intelligible (the difference among Norwegian dialects being comparable approximately with the difference among Lombard dialects). In the UK, the term "dialects" refers more to what could be described as "accents". Etc. etc.--Jorgengb 23:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Replying to myself, the article "Italian dialects" may have the potential for being the kind of thing I was speaking about. On the other hand, the corresponding article "Dialetto" on it.wikipedia seems less than optimal, but that's something we're already discussing on it.wikipedia. LjL 14:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

LjL 21:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

From: Italian language> Dialects:<<The dialects of Italian identified by the Ethnologue are Tuscan, Piemontese, Abruzzese, Pugliese (Apulian), Umbrian, Laziale, Central Marchigiano, Cicolano-Reatino-Aquilano, and Molisan. Other dialects are Milanese, Brescian, Bergamasc, Modenese, Bolognese, Sicilian and so on, essentially one per city.>>

This is not correct. Ethnologue classifies Milanese, Brescian, Bergamasque as Lombard dialects, i.e. Gallo-Romance varieties. How could they be dialects of an Italo-Romance variety as Italian?--Jorgengb 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I didn't write the article :-D. It just looked spot-on; I didn't even check how correct the content was.

LjL 00:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

From: Italian dialects:<<Italian dialects (in Italian dialetti italiani) are varieties of standard Italian, whereas Dialects of Italy (in Italian Dialetti d'Italia) may be unrecognized languages, such as Sicilian, Piedmontese, spoken in Italy whose grammar, syntaxis and vocabulary are rather different from standard Italian but which have not been officially given the status of languages.>>

The definition "Dialects of Italy" is a step in the right direction, but is still problematic. Would Lombard be a "Dialect of Italy" or a "Dialect of Switzerland" or both? And Franco-Provençal? a "Dialect of France", a "Dialect of Italy" or a "Dialect of Switzerland"? And North Sami? a "Dialect of Norway", "of Sweden" or "of Finland"?--Jorgengb 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What are nynorsk and bokmål, by the way? :-P

The two written standards of Norwegian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynorsk ). The difference between them might be compared with that between two Lombard dialects. Du talar/skriv svensk, ikkje sant? Då forstår du sikkert også denne setninga, som er på nynorsk. Du snakker/skriver svensk, ikke sant? Da forstår du sikkert også denne setningen, som er på bokmål. Bokmål is actually "norwegianized Danish", while nynorsk was constructed in the 19th century by Ivar Aasen as a common written language based on the Norwegian dialects and always keeping Old Norse in mind. Both bokmål and nynorsk have evolved since that time, and are still evolving. --Jorgengb 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Du snackar/skriver svenska, eller hur? Då förstår du säkert också denna frasen, som är på nynorska/bokmål.

But I was just making a(nother) example of how language-related stuff can be confused ;-) And Norwegian certainly looks confusing to an outsider, believe me... what other langauge (but wait, it's not an official language, each dialect is as official as any other) has two written standards (which both apply to any dialect, to some better than to other)? No offence meant, but, at first sight, it looks like a textbook case of "How to Create Problems when in Lack of Them"! :-D

LjL 01:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. Yes, Norwegians mainly speak their own dialects, and write in one of the two standard languages (which also have different alternative forms, just to make the matter simpler...). The Norwegian situation is rather peculiar, maybe comparable with the one of Belarus for certain aspects, and it is so particular that it is often mentioned in textbooks about sociolinguistics and language planning. But there is a reason for all this: after 400 years under Denmark, Norwegian had survived only in the spoken dialects, while the official written language was Danish. When Norway became independent, there were two roads to a national language: 1. to norwegianize Danish --> this gave bokmål, and 2. to define a written language based on what people spoke in Norway, i.e.the different dialects --> this gave nynorsk (well, this was an extremely simplified version of the whole story). Anyway, there are areas with even more complicate situations: just think of the Grisons, with the different written varieties of Romansh AND the unified rumantsch grischun (in addition to written standard German and spoken Swiss German, and even written and spoken Italian and spoken Lombard varieties in 3 valleys). Anyway, the fact of being exposed in daily life to many different dialects has made Norwegians much more robust (in the technical sense) than Swedes and Danes when it comes to understanding other Nordic languages. This fact has been observed and verified also in a recent study. To put it in another way, we could say that our speech recognition algorithm has been trained with much less homogeneous data than the Danes' and Swedes' --Jorgengb 00:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, for what it's worth, I think Lombard would be a dialect of both Italy and Switzerland (but, naturally, would be referred to as a "dialect of Italy" in an article titled "Italian dialects").

...and a "dialect of Switzerland" in an article titled "Swiss dialects". That is more or less what has been done by Ethnologue (www.ethnologue.com). Btw.: both Ethnologue and the UNESCO clearly classify Lombard as a language quite distinct from Italian (for a rough quantitative estimate just count the intervening nodes on the Ethnologue language tree between Lombard and Italian...)--Jorgengb 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LjL 00:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a lexeme is "a meaningful linguistic unit that is an item in the vocabulary of a language" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lexeme) --Jorgengb 00:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to previous version. 1. Lombard may be spoken in Sicily, as well as iy may be spoken in Australia, in the US, etc. Nevertheless, the core area of Lombardy is Ticino, the Grisons and (Italian) Lombardy. 2. I may be usefl to group Lombard varieties into Eastern and Western, but it would be misleading to regard Eastern and Western Lombard as varieties with several dialects.--Jorgengb 22:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly Lombard was spoken in Sicily before the United States and Australia were countries. I'm not sure if you're implying that Lombard is foreign to Sicily, because they weren't the original inhabitants. The Lombard people settled into certain parts of Sicily (the 11th century) just as the many other groups. They may be relatively newer to the island, but it doesn't make them more foreign. Lombard may only have been spoken in the U.S. or Australia for no more than 150 years, hence such a comparison to Sicily cannot be made. --VingenzoTM 13:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the original "western Lombard" variety spoken in the Sicilian communities has evolved so much over time, that one can make a legitimate claim that several separate "dialects" or "sub-dialects" of western Lombard Sicilian exist throughout the five different provinces it occupies. Visit the following webpage to see the three different "forms" (dialects, subdialects) of western Lombard Sicilian. It can be postulated that even more forms exist as languages have always evolved, divergently, rapidly and dissimilarly in Sicily, as a result of the terrain. As a native Sicilian speaker, I can assure you that I can barely understand a quarter of the material in either of the three different Sicilian forms found on that website. Again, there are probably even more than three different "forms" (dialects, subdialects) of Lombard in Sicily, especially since they are spread out across five different provinces. I also would like to share with you an amusing little tidbit that I observed over the years during interaction and storytelling with my grandparents and other older relatives. For those Sicilians alive from the time before Italian unification (1861) up to just forty years ago (and possibly even today for the elderly), Sicilians have always considered those people from a different town or province than their own as foreigners. This is quite astonishing, but it was done because even someone from two miles away, while still speaking a similar dialect of Sicilian, had a noticeably different accent. In some cities, the accent can changed dramatically just from street to street (example, Agrigento/Girgenti). Therefore, to conclude that there cannot be many different forms, or "dialects" or "subdialects" of western Lombard in Sicily would be absurd, especially due to the fact that there was plenty of time for corruption, evolution, and dialectization to occurr in the last ten centuries since the Lombards entered Sicily. link showing three of the possibly many subdialects of western Lombard in Sicily --VingenzoTM 13:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with VingenzoTM. Under Jorgengb's reasoning, the fact that Greek is spoken in parts of Southern Italy should not be mentioned in the article about Greek. But as far as we know, there is an uninterrupted Greek tradition in S.I. that dates to ancient Magna Graecia! Furthermore, I think that most scholars believe that Greek did not originate in Greece: shouldn't the fact that Greek is spoken in Greece be mentioned? :-) LjL 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Lombard Wikipedia

I suggest the proposed project to include other Gallo-Italic varieties. Sarcelles 28 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as "Lombard language"

I thought this was a no-brainer, but it seems some people have strange ideas around here... The "lombard language" does not exist. You can talk about a "Lombard family" of dialects (or languages if you prefer, this is not the issue). The "lombard language" is just as absurd as "the romance language", "the scandinavian language", "the iberian language", "the slavic language". It's a plain nonsense, and the article has a very misleading title. If some "modern linguists" came up with some weird definitions of language where a language may not even be mutually intelligible with itself, kudos, but readers expect an explicative title.

I mean, the article itself states that it is "a group of related dialects" and even that "Sometimes the word "Lombard" is used referring to an actually not yet existent common language." (yet??)

I also noticed that some of the notes I put about the historical reasons of the reduced use of dialects has been cut out. Will see what can be recovered. Anyway, my point is the absurdity of the singular number. --Orzetto 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization/rewrite of January 9, 2005

Hi, I changed quite a few things. Please keep comments in their subsections and sign each one, so it is easier to keep track. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of speakers

9,133,855 is outrageously off the mark. It is more than the population of Lombardy. Since most people under 40 do not speak dialect at all because they grew up with Italian, since there are consistent numbers of both extra-european and southern-Italian immigrants (Milan is Italy's third Apulian city after Bari and Brindisi, to give an idea—then we have to count Sicilians, Campanians, and all the mixed marriages where dialect cannot be used for intercommunication... you get the picture). I put N/A until a more reasonable estimate can be found. Please notice we are talking about speakers, not people who merely understand it, or know just one sentence or two. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lombardic"

I removed it since there is a disambiguation link pointing to Lombardic language (which is not related). --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language vs. Dialect vs. ...

I tried to avoid using "language" or "dialect" altogether, so we avoid at least this one controversy. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement and sectioning

Now the arguments are presented as Introduction-Features-Varieties-Usage-Links. I added something on the historical-political reasons of usage in Italy, which I feel must be explained. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Lombard language v Lombard dialects page move request (WP:RM#9_January_2006) - if the issue isn't settled, can people vote here please? Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll close this as no consensus, most obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lombard wikipedia

Could someone start wikipedia in Lombard?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk):-)

Check [1] (note: LMO and not LOM). Cate 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siculo-gallic dialects

I find it extraordinary that some authors have been so dismissive of the siculo-gallic dialects that have as their origin the large scale immigration of mostly Lombards to Sicily between 1090 and 1120 after the Norman conquest of Sicily. These dialects are spoken to this day in Piazza Armerina, Sperlinga and Aidone amongst others (but in ever decreasing numbers). After 900 years they are more a mixture of Sicilian and Lombard dialects. I would have thought that they at least rate a mention in this article (but definitely deserve a serious article of their own). This is a quote from the article on Sicily: "There are also several areas where dialects of the Lombard language of the Gallo-Italic family are spoken. Much of this population is also tri-lingual, being able to also speak one of the Sicilian dialects as well." ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend the following excellent text which provides a detailed linguistic history on the subject: * Hull, Dr Geoffrey (1989) Polyglot Italy:Languages, Dialects, Peoples, CIS Educational, Melbourne. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Siculo-Gallic does not necessarily imply Siculo-Lombard. In any case, texts in those varieties are unintelligible to a Lombard speaker.--80.202.30.190 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting issue, and I think the Siculo-Gallic (or Gallo-Sicilian ?) varieties deserve a wiki of their own. Could ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑, who seems to be the most qualified expert about those varieties, start a Siculo-Gallic or Gallo-Sicilian Wiki?--Jorgengb 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of article deteriorating

I see some political sentiments creeping into this article which, if not POV, represent either OR or something certainly difficult to verify (I refer to the last few edits). I have already given my thoughts on this article above, and do not wish to get involved. I will say this though, apart from the political undercurrents of this article, the following are fictitious words: "distantiate" and "fictive". Find some real words, or better still, rewrite the whole thing to make it an article actually broaching linguistic themes. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CH or IT

Which country should be mentioned first, Switzerland or Italy?

• Lombard is far better preserved in Switzerland;
• Lombard is more socially accepted in Switzerland;
• More money is invested in research about Lombard varieties in Switzerland than in Italy;
• In present-day Switzerland there is no political will to eradicate Lombard;
• The largest research institutions working on lombard and Lombard culture are in Switzerland;
• The largest publications about Lombard come from Switzerland;
• The chances for Lombard to survive are much better in Switzerland than in Italy;

Therefore I think Switzerland should be mentioned first. --80.202.30.190 18:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree, but the point is that this is an encyclopedia so you must provide facts to your statements, otherwise defining in which country is better preserved becomes a totally subjective matter. Unless you provide facts, Lombardy (which has itself more inhabitants than the whole Switzerland) should be mentioned first. --Fertuno 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, well that's not so obvius, but I am afraid I agree (especially about last point: I mean this by saying 'I am afraid') Bests--213.140.11.135 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot logging in: --10caart 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh là là, merci! Well... I agree.--Belinzona 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. --Clamengh 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lombard varieties, Lombard dialects, Lombard idioms, etc.

Once it has been made clear at the beginning that "The term Lombard refers to a group of related varieties" and not to a single, standardised variety, there is no need to repeat "Lombard varieties" or "dialects" or "idioms" every time throughout the whole article. "Lombard" is just a shorthand form for "Lombard varieties".--80.202.30.190 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the language issue

It seems to me that many of the users who have debated the "language issue" in this discussion page are not very up-to-date when it comes to modern linguistic thory and to the meaning of the word 'language'. Cfr. Ausbausprache, etc.. There is no doubt that Italian and French are Ausbau languages. Lombard as per today is not an Ausbau language, but nevertheless it is an Abstand language on the ground of its structural distance (in German: Abstand) from, say, Italian and French:

"A language may be an abstand language without being an ausbau language. This is often the case with minority languages used within a larger nation state, where the minority language is used only in private and all official functions are performed in the majority language." (Ausbausprache, etc.).

We can therefore say that Lombard as per today is not an Ausbau language; that Lombard is an Abstand language; that Lombard as per today has no own Dachsprache or 'umbrella language' (the so-called 'koiné ticinese' might actually be a good candidate for Swiss Lombard varieties or even for all Western Lombard varieties). Finally:

Kloss has also used the term pseudo-dialectized abstand language for cases where a variety is so different from its Dachsprache that it ought to be regarded as a separate language on abstand grounds, but is nevertheless treated more like a dialect in social practice. Examples include Sardinian vis-a-vis Italian, or Occitan vis-a-vis French. (Ausbausprache, etc.).

This is also the case of Lombard vis-a-vis Italian as a Dachsprache.

Please notice that in the Wiki about Ausbausprache, etc. the term 'language' is used in all cases, making no assumption as to whether there is a codified standard or not.

If an authoritative linguist like Kloss, together with many others, uses the word 'Sprache'/'language' without implying standardisation, I can't see any reason (other than Italian cultural imperialism...) why we shouldn't safely switch the "Lombard (linguistics)" wiki back to "Lombard language". --Jorgengb 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw:

For the UNESCO Red Book, Lombard is a 'potentially endangered' language; see [2].

For Ethnologue, Lombard is one of the 'languages of Switzerland' [3] and one of the 'languages of Italy' [4]

As per today 20th November 2006, the Lombard Wikipedia [5] with its 3,014 articles ranks as the 89th of 250 (ranking for Armenian: 91; Friulian: 106; Cantonese: 107; Quechua: 131; Romansh: 143; Classical Chinese: 159; Sardinian: 160). The Lombard Wikipedia shows the main page alternatively in Western and Eastern Lombard (odd and even days, or the other way round). --Jorgengb 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I report below the three oppositions (including mine) to the original move as supports for going back to the original title--10caart 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Motivation: in fact a new vote.--10caart 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support ISO standard. Sorry for delay. [...] Best regards,--Clamengh 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support ISO 639-3, Ethnologue, Unesco Red Book. Please read what I have written here in the section Back to the language issue. --Jorgengb 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: a lot of international standards. Mutual intelligibility is still lacking a scientific definition. For instance, as a matter a fact, it is fine at lmo.wp, where everybody talks (in fact writes) his/her dialect.--10caart 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The above opinions should be formulated into a formal move request at WP:RM to gain wider input. —  AjaxSmack  20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• support; Thank you; unfortunately, I am new at English wikipedia, so, for the moment I am expressing my support here; preceding move was purely political, of course, so it deserves to be reverted; Lombard language is a widely accepted linguistic category, even in a Cisalpine framework. See for example Italia settentrionale, crocevia di idiomi romanzi, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1995, pag.83. I hope someone else will do what  AjaxSmack  kindly asks. Thank you--OlBergomi 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To OlBergomi: Would you mind pasting here (some of) the text from Italia settentrionale, crocevia di idiomi romanzi, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1995, pag.83 ? Thanks ! - --Jorgengb 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: for instance, google search for "Lombard language" returns 7.850 results; google search for Lombard language returns 1.170.000 results. Does anyone know if user:Orzetto is a psychiatrist? Thank you, Bests form Switzerland!--Belinzona 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I have the same problems as OlBergomi, I am new here (I didn't understand exactly what AjaxSmack means)--Belinzona 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Coumh 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Sirs, many thanks to everybody for taking part in this passionating discussion. As a matter of fact, 'Lombard language' (or tongue) is the standard term used by scholars to designate this language. So this is the right place for this article, as Bkonrad correctly poointed out. As someone else noted, a Google search for 'Lombard language' returns more than 1.000.000 results: I think this settles the question. I think that politicised views should be left far from this encyclopedia, as WP:NOT requires. Reality is simple: no doubt that Lombard is a dying language, so everyone is kindly asked not to shot at the red cross. Thank you. Here are some references:

• Glauco Sanga: La lingua Lombarda, in Koiné in Italia, dalle origini al 500 (Koinés in Italy, from the origin to 1500), Lubrina publisher, Bèrghem
• Orbis Latinus
• dict.cc, Deutsch-English Übersetzaung
• Logos dictionary for Mantuan and Bressan
• the linguist list
• tourist information
• Studi di lingua e letteratura lombarda offerti a Maurizio Vitale, (Studies in Lombard language and literature) Pisa : Giardini, 1983
• Fasolo, Giovanni Battista<ca. 1600-ca. 1664> - Il Carro di Madama Lucia , et una Serenata in lingua lombarda (Lombard language), che fa la gola, a carnevale; dopo un Ballo di tre Zoppi; con una Sguazzata di colasone. Una moresca... - Roma: Robletti, Giovanni Battista, 1628
• Brevini, Franco - Lo stile lombardo : la tradizione letteraria da Bonvesin da la Riva a Franco Loi / Franco Brevini - Pantarei, Lugan - 1984 (Lombard style: literary tradition from Bonvesin da la Riva to Franco Loi )
• G.Hull: the linguistic unity of northern Italy and Rhaetia, PhD thesis, University of Sidney West, 1982
• romaniaminor, a map of Romance languages, including lombard language It needs Flash.
• A paper by the Catalan linguist Santi Arbós, see contents at p.2
• La llengua llombarda - Article by Andrea de Vecchi (Catalan)
• Italia Settentrionale crovevia di idiomi romanzi, atti del convergno internazionale Trento 1993 (Northern Italy carrefour of Romance idioms, proceedings of international congress, Trent 1993), Niemeyer, Tübingen 1995
• Unesco red book of endangered languages
• [www.iso.ch ISO international standards]

Many other ones available upon request. All in all, please, be so kind to get yourselves documented upon verifiable sources. From now on I will be speaking as a spokesman of Lombard community: we are firm in defending our language, and this place for this article. Thank you. --Clamengh 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree The Lombard varieties are in danger, as im most areas they are not transmitted to the coming generations. The Lombard issue needs support and positive action, not fruitless discussions!--Jorgengb 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. --Flavi 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree: the same danger, though not yet so advanced as in Italy, takes place in Switzerland--62.203.5.130 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)--Belinzona 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (not logged in, sorry)
• Agree:--10caart 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)