Talk:Latin Europe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would say that latin america is the equivalent of latin europe in the american continent, not the inverse. Latin europe exist since 2000 years, while latin america had its latin influence since only 500 years (and the latin identity is only one part of latin america : we should not forget the native indian and african influences)
" making the term Latin America diffult to be accepted by some Latin Europeans " I don't think that latin European have any difficulty to accept and use the term latin America, as long as it is used correctly. There is traditionally strong links between the two shores of the latin world, especially with countries like Brazil, Argentina or Mexico. What some latin Europeans have difficulties to accept is that the term "latin" would be applied ONLY to latin-Americans, as the present tendency (due to US/Cuban pop culture, Cf. "latino" stars, etc.) is slowly changing the meaning in this direction.
Contents |
[edit] Latin Europe
Parts of Europe that are latin in influence are also Istria and Dalmatia. Many of these areas were Venetian and still speak it. Also, Slovenia has Italian as an official language especially in Pirano, Pola and Capodistria. I checked this on the internet a few days ago.
- Yes, this should be included as "Italian-speaking municipalities of Slovenia".
Ronline ✉ 13:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"Some parts of the Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia are Slovenian-speaking, with Slovenian having the status of official language alongside Italian and Friulian" I'm not sure this is correct. Can anyone confirm this?
Also, there are very few native Italian speakers remaining in Istria and Dalmatia, since most native Italians were displaced immediately following world war II. The influence remains in the culture, architecture and cuisine- but the latin language is now virtually extinct. 207.6.233.239 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In 2006 there are not only Italians in Slovenia, but even in Croatia. They are mainly concentrated in Istria, but even in small amounts in Dalmatia, Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar). Furthermore, the article makes no reference to the Aromanians (Vlachs) living scatered in the southern Balkans (between Greece,Albania, Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria). These Aromanians are a neolatin population of around 250000. The Vlachs are experiencing with the European Union an awakening revival that has allowed their recognition as a minority by the government of Macedonia. There are even communities of Romanians in the countries surrounding Romania, like Ukraine (that in the last census states that there are 325000 Moldovians/Romanians inside its borders).Brunodam (10/31/06).
[edit] Celtic?
"Brittany in France, Galicia and Asturias in Spain show a Celtic flavour" This line is terrible, Breton IS a Celtic language, specifically, a Brythonic language related to Welsh and Cornish, it's not merely a 'flavour'. The Galician language and Astur-Leonese language on the other hand are completely Latin, saying they have a 'celtic flavour' is equivalent of saying German has a 'Celtic flavour' because Celts used to inhabit pre-Roman Germany.
Semi-Lobster
I think the expression "celtic flavour" in the case of Britanny is right since the number of speakers of Breton is so small that we canno't speak of Britanny as a "celtic nation" - for 99% of population of Britanny the "celtiness" is limited to a "identity feeling" more than a real celtic culture. The same for Galicia, where people feel close to a "celticness", even if basically they are latin : a romance-speaking people. That's why excluding those regions from latin Europe would be wrong, but saying that they are latin regions with a celtic flavour describe those region much better. being myself a Breton, I like "celticness", but basically I know that it is just a mark of the past that doesn't describe my actual identity as a French and romance speaker.
There is no 'Celticness' in Galacian or Asturian. The languages are thoroughly Latin. As for Brittany, Breton is spoken by 300,000 billingual, mostly elderly people, while the rest are monolingual French speakers. I never said these places should be excluded I was saying that comparing Galician and Asturian which have no Celtic influence to Brittany, which does have (an allbeit near extinct) Brythonic language was incorrect. I'm suggestion that the line about Brittany should be rewritten and speak of the billingualness of Brittany with an Oïl speaking majority and a historical autochthonous Breton language and that the mention of Galicia and Asturias as 'celtic' should be removed.
Semi-Lobster
"speak of the billingualness of Brittany". Being a Breton, I can assure you that the idea of "Britanny" as a bilingual region is false. The people who speak the language are a big minority (less than 10%), most of them know it only as a second or third language thanks to the écoles Diwan. Almost Nobody speaks Breton outside its home.
Indeed, Breton has almost gone the way of Cornish and Manx, and probably will be completely dead in a decade or two. And besides, Breton is not the only language of Brittany, there is also Gallo. Of course officially no language in the Republic of France recieves special treatment, but for a historical context it could be mentioned that before World War II Breton was once commonly spoken and now is spoken only by a shrinking, aged minority of people. I'm not disputing the 'Cetlicness' or the lack there of in Brittany, my main point is that there absolutely no Celtic influence linguistically on Galician and Asturian.
Semi-Lobster
[edit] Huh?
I am the only one who find this sentence clunky and confunsing: " The use of the words Latin and latino as used in the United States and in the Americas to speak only about Latin-American things is considered ignorance-derived by Latin Europeans, and can be considered offensive." --chemica 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:English_language#The_English_people_and_language_are_Romance
Rhode Islander 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
