Talk:Iberian language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. |
here is another thing i'm going to have to do research on. Gringo300 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Translation
I've continued the translation that somebody else began. I'm not translating literally in some cases for sever reasons:
- It sounds better to me my way (the distinction isn't clear vs. the distinction is unclear).
- The Spanish is NPOV (or otherwise seems un-wiki-wise. "Debo" (should)is a pretty good indication of this.
- The literal Spanish phrasing doesn't make sense in English.
Otherwise I'm trying to say mostly true to the original. I've re-organized a bit, but that's about all. I have more to say, but I'm gonna go. I'll continue translating soon I hope. --Quintucket 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sardinia
Removed a line from the intro, which needs a source (paraphrase): "the substrate of the Sardinian language has been identified as an Iberian language or close to the Iberian language."---Alexander 007 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Areas of Marginal Interest
I've realized that I've been translating some sections that are of marginal interest even to me, and I'm fascinated by linguistics. Is there any reason anybody can see for me to continue along this path? I'm fairly certain a lot of what I've so far left untranslated will get cropped by later editors if I translate it anywhen.
The Spanish and Galician Wikipedias have far less editing than the English does. I'm just going to work on the more relevant stuff for now, and leave the minor linguistic notes (which make up about half the content of the article) for later if at all.
I suppose though that the notes themselves are interesting, it's more the examples, which are irrelevant and confusing. And those just involve copying-pasting large sections and then changing o/u, y/e, como, que, and así to their English equivalents. The example texts for example, are an excellent example of this. They don't have Spanish equivalents, and hence would be of little interest to the average reader. And some interpretations, while fascinating to the linguist in me would again be of little interest to the average reader. Though I'd advise against cutting that one entirely, I might prune it down a bit if others suggest it.
Basically, I don't want to go through pointless effort.--Quintucket 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I took a quick look at the new material, and I didn't see anything I would crop yet. It is all pretty much interesting and worthwhile so far. Alexander 007 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Damn. Now that I know somebody's reading it I feel like I should hurry up and finish rather than skip about between projects. Nevertheless, Tartessian language is in a similar situation to where this one was. At this point I have a good chunk of Iberian done so I'm gonna go work on translating that for a bit. I'm sure I'll come back to this fairly soon unless somebody else gets there first. --Quintucket 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Phonology
"The m rarely appears in the initial position. Velaza proposes that it could be a variant of /n/, backed by the example of iumstir/iunstir. José A. Correa advances the possibility that it may be a geminated or strong nasal. Rodríguez Ramos notes the idea that it could be a variant of /n/ in cases that it nasalizes the preceding vowel."
I wonder if anybody realized how likely assimilation is -> /m/ before an alveolar consonant > /n/ is very very common...
[edit] Sibilants
- It is worth noting that Basque also has two silibants: /s/ as apical alveolar and /z/ as laminal alveolar, which could correspond to [ś] and [s].
Aren't x, ts, tz and tx sibilants? How many sibilants did Medieval Castilian have? --Error 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of offending comments
I have removed the following paragraph: "This author JESUS RODRIGUEZ RAMOS has studied ancient Iberian and present its origin and other studies in a totally dogmatic way. This way is so dogmatic that he personally (not scientifically) and plainly dismisses several authors that have also studied the same topics and reached different conclussions. Everything is not said about Iberian language with Ramos work. He expands libels through Internet taking profit of the Wikipedia good will . Portugese F.suffers a blunt uncontrolled attack. Spanish A-V.is exposed to private accusations (unrelated to Iberian language)which never were proved.Ramos should be suited. Spanish A-G. is accused without a minimal integrity from Ramos part.
This is only a caveat for innocent readers that should look up other abundant literature on Iberian language,including M. Ruhlen´s and J.Bengston´s work on Dene-Caucasian,which includes Basque and Caucasian languages . V. Sarkisian works on Armenian and Basque language (he is the President of the Language Academy at Armenia) and many other studies should also be consulted."
The previous authors should be cited, for sure, but in a different way. Javirl 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some remarks on the offending comments
The "blunt uncontrolled attack" against "portuguese F." is exactly the opposite (see http://www.bib.uab.es/pub/faventia/02107570v26n2p157.pdf). There is no paper, book or Wikipedia article written by Rodríguez Ramos in which A-V (Arnaiz-Villena) or A-G (Alonso García) are even mentioned (they are only in his private web page). There is an english word for the books of Arnaiz and Alonso on ancient languages: crackpots. They translate Iberian, Etruscan, Hittite and Ancient Egyptian (inter alia) using modern Basque (even using Latin and Romance loans!!). So I supose that all the other researchers on these language are dogmatics, that Coptic isn't related to ancient Egyptian, that Champollion didn't decipher it and that Hittite isn't Indo-European neither Hrozny deciphered it. :-D :-D In fact, there do is a paper in a journal about AG and AV, written by professor De Hoz (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) (not by Rodríguez Ramos)reviewing their books in which he writes:
"Que se haya desviado dinero público para la edición de supuestos trabajos lingüísticos cuyo interés científico es el mismo que el de la práctica de conjuros ante un muñeco de cera para la curación de cáncer, cuando tesis de considerable valor permanecen inéditas y sus autores tienen que buscar salidas académicas fuera del país es algo peor que una estupidez, es un crimen del que debe existir un responsable al que se debiera pedir cuentas" ("Viaje a ninguna parte a través del Mediterráneo. Las lenguas que no hablaron ni iberos, ni etruscos, ni cretenses" Rev. De Libros 28, abril 1999, 11).
I translate the last phrase: "it's a crime of which there must be a responsible, who should be called to account". Even so, user 212.85.39.220 (who also writes on Genetics ;-) guess who! ) attacks Rodríguez Ramos but not De Hoz.
The alleged "private accusations" "never proved" against A-V are too public (charges against his practices as civil servant in his public job in the public spanish health system IMSALUD) and it is the spanish administration who prosecutes him and sanctioned him severely (sanction confirmed by a judge) and this sentence was published by the spanish newspapers (http://www.elpais.es/articulo/madrid/juez/suspende/33/meses/empleo/sueldo/jefe/inmunologia/Doce/Octubre/elpepiautmad/20031111elpmad_13/Tes/ ). So "private accusations" that were "never proven"? "Ramos should be suited"? Why not to suit the judge or the newspapers?
By the way. Does somebody know any paper or book of Sarkisian, Bengtson or Ruhlen on Iberian language? The non-existent can't be cited. And on their work on Basque, why not consult the devastating critics by Larry Trask, Lyle Campbell or Joseba Lakarra? It's easy to find in internet very harsh comments of Larry Trask on Bengtson, Ruhlen or Alonso and their lack of everything (for example 1, 2, 3, 4 ).
As in internet, also in the wikipedia itself you can find reference on the dubious methodology of Arnaiz (look for the comments of Cavalli-Sforza who demolishes his methodology, here). And what to say on Sarkisian, who proposes that Basque and Armenian are related languages. As everybody knows, Armenian is an Indo-European language, Basque isn't, and transitivity isn't a joke.
[edit] Misleading fact
I appreciate the article focused on Iberian Languages, as being from Portugal. However, I've noticed a misleading mistake in the chart on the right side of the article. It states that Iberian Languages (as the languages from the Iberian Peninsula and spoken there as well) are distributed in the mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula, spoken in Spain and France. This creates the impression that France belongs to the Iberian Peninsula whihch wrong, the only lands that form the Iberian Peninsula are: Portugal, Spain, Andorra and Gibraltar. Once again, France does not belong to the Iberian Peninsula. It might have influence of the Iberian Languages, since French is also spoken in Andorra, and is very similar to the dominant official languages (in the Peninsula Iberica) Portuguese and Spanish. I'd like the author to revise this article with the purpose to prevent resulting misleadings. My thanks, --70.52.150.215 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia
Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
