Talk:Arvanitika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archive: 2005October 2005-February 2006

Contents

[edit] New version proposal

Hey guys, it's been so quiet here of late. Where are you? :-)

Okay, since no fighting has broken out so far again over at Arvanites after I did the reworking, I'm going to propose the same procedure here. Please look at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanitic.

The "political" compromise for the first sentence is the same as in the other article: "Form of Albanian" IN, "Shqip" OUT. That's not just a give-and-take, by the way, but I actually think both decisions can independently be justified.

As for the rest, the version I'm proposing has the advantage of being much better sourced, if nothing else (well, maybe "heavily oversourced" describes it better...)

Theathenae might not like the section on "classification", I'm afraid, αλλά τι να κάν'μι, ουρέ παιδιά, έτσ' του λέν' τα βιβλία.

Please feel free to edit in the User-page version, especially where it deals with the pure linguistic facts. I'd ask you to leave the politically sensitive formulations alone for the moment. Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

Proposal
  1. Accept compromise formula for first sentence ("Form of Albanian" IN, "Shqip" OUT).
  2. Use version at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanitic as basis for further editing.
  3. Request unprotection on this basis.
Support
  • Support as nominator - Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you, Lukas, for the excellent work on this article! --Macrakis 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ...
Support with reservations
  • Support, but ...
  • Support, but ...
  • Support, but ...
Oppose
  • Oppose ...
  • Oppose ...
  • Oppose ...

[edit] Factual question

Question to the Arvanitic (or Albanian) speakers: The grammar section (with data taken over from the Arvanitikos Syndesmos website) has some pronoun paradigms. There are sets of two 3rd-person-plural pronouns, (atá/ató and atíre/atíreve), which are described as masculine/feminine respectively. There are also sets of two forms each for 1st plural and 2nd plural, with one of them containing the same formant -ve. Is that also a masculine/feminine contrast, or if not, what is it? Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find Albanians who can help with Arvanitic writings. If you do, I might bring some songs. I think that "Arvanitic is considered an endangered language" should be at your new intro. talk to +MATIA 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
O, I was just asking specifically about the grammatical contrast between ne and neve, and between ju and juve, and whether it corresponds functionally to the contrast betweeen atíre and atíreve. My professional linguistic curiosity showing through. :-) Would be interesting to see if that corresponds to mainstream Albanian, of course. (I'd guess it would, wouldn't it?) - As for the "endangered language" thing, sure, valid point. Note taken. Lukas (T.|@) 09:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not Arberishtë speaker, but the examples you mentioned correspond perfectly to modern Albanian. Only difference being atíre and atíreve correspond to atyre and atyreve.
Hi, thanks, at last somebody with some real linguistic information! Could you try and explain also what exactly the difference between atyre and atyreve would be? Masculine/feminine or something else? Lukas (T.|@) 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Assuming the grammar is analogous to standard Albanian then atyre is 3rd person plural pronoun in dative/ablative case ( to/by/around them) and atyreve looks like standard albanian të tyreve, which is the 3rd person plural possessive pronoun (not the possessive determiner) in dative/ablative case, for which the possessed referent is plural. Eg Atyre u pëlqen muzika = To them (dative+ clitic) pleases the music [they like music]. Kam shëtitur afër të tyreve = [I] have walked near theirs(ablative). If the possessed referent is singular masculine then it would be të tyrit, sing. feminine would be së tyres; Albanian possesives not only vary for the gender, number and case of the possessor, but also for the gender and number of the thing possessed.

[edit] Another question: Spelling "Arberichte"?

Does anybody know if the spelling "Arberichte" is authentic? It's found in the Ethnologue, but I have the suspicion that it's just a typo for "Arberishte", which through Ethnologue has found its way into other documents. What language would that "ch" spelling come from, and what sound would it be supposed to represent? Surely, "Arberishte" should be in the list in the Ethnologue, and it's missing. Lukas (T.|@) 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about "ch" , Arbërishte should be the correct spelling
I'm just guessing, but wouldn't a French speaker pronounce "Arberichte" as "Arbërishte". Apart from the final -e I think they would. --NikX 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet

According to [1]:

Along with Vlachs, Macedonians, and Roma, Arvanites in Greece argue whether they should use the Greek or the Latin alphabet to write their language, which has rarely been written (Gerou, 1994a; Kazazis, 1994).

And according to [2]: Greek or Roman script. So Arvanitic may be written in the Latin alphabet as well. Whether the Latin/Roman alphabet they are referring to = Albanian alphabet is a matter of doubt, but I definitely think that there are references claiming that the Latin/Roman can also be used to write Arvanitic should be mentioned. --NikX 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv

I've reverted to a different version by Telex. (see also Talk:Arvanites)talk to +MATIA 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move debate was: moved by User:Aldux, 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Move Arvanitic language to Arvanitika. This was discussed and didn't find consensus earlier (see Archive page), but that discussion was deeply flawed both procedurally and in terms of content. It took place in the context of an insanely disruptive POV-pushing edit war, in a climate of totally irrational combativeness, and with no contact to the actual literature. As several of the parties involved back then are no longer active, I hope we can now settle this in a more constructive way.

Arguments for Arvanitika
  1. Although "Arvanitic", the anglicised version, is certainly possible as an ad-hoc formation according to the usual word-formation rules of English, the Greek version "Arvanitika" actually has significantly more currency in the English-language literature, including the Ethnologue entry and all the recent important publications.
  2. It is also identical to the self-identifying term used by the Arvanites themselves in Greek.
  3. It doesn't require the addition of the disambiguating term "... language", since it unambiguously denotes the language by itself (as opposed to the ethnic group or its members etc.). Hence, the simple name without "... language" should be used according to WP:NAME#Languages, both spoken and programming and WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things.
  4. Since it doesn't require the "... language" tag, it avoids the POV issue of whether Arvanitika is in fact a separate language or not. The current title of Arvanitic language is biased towards the separate-language POV, which - to put it mildly - is not the mainstream view in scholarship. "Arvanitika" is neutral.

Fut.Perf. 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Support
  • Support per nom. Also, Trudgill uses Arvanitika, and states that in modern scholarship it is either called Arvanitika or "Albanian". The "Arvanitic" nomenclature seems rather dubious to me, as it was extracted from the "alternative names" section from Ethnologue, and according to the article in question there have been problems in the past with the accuracy of those sections (we even came across one - the Arberichte, which is also found in the "alternative names" section). Whatever it is, it seems to be a neologism, and Arvanitika does better in a Google test. --Telex 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fut.Perf. 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)