Talk:Romance languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Romance languages as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] First discussions

I'm sorry but stupidity is reaching limits. if you want to put dialects in here, you will have to put hundreds. If you want to put varieties they put all of then, for Spanish and French also. Why Portuguese and minorized languages only? When, in reality, there is differences in grammar between the various varieties of Spanish when Portuguese hasnt? Or are you basing your non-sence ideas on xenophobic websites? -Pedro 17:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The words "group", "division" and "section" are ones that I have supplied myself in outlining the tree, and they will continue to be useful for keeping logical track of things as long as I'm on the project. Ethnologue.com doesn't use any such terms except for "family" at the very top of its index. Any comments about what the "official" terms should be, or whether there should be any at all will be helpful. Eclecticology

The words can be fine, the point is the content, as differences among theories can be relevant and produce different classifications. I would perhaps wonder if it's possible to render the scheme less absolute, or open to be not only dependent on ISO codes, allowing some notes about variable interpretations and respective reasons.
In Sardinian language there is an ISO code for Sardinian, Sassarese - (SIL Code, SDC) that, listed as it is now, could bring to consider Sassarese - 30,000 speakers? - as a version, while it generally is not accorded the same importance as the other three (and I would agree it has not that dignity - many other local idioms can be more interesting than sassarese like, just to mention one, in the little village of Gavoi, where there are hebrew etyma and tuscan phonemes, among all); this obviously depends on related theories and authors. Respecting the classification here adopted, but needing to include another classification, how could differences be rendered? - Gianfranco

Thank you for your comments, Gianfranco. In undertaking efforts on the Romance languages, my intention was more to expand the structure, than to be an authority on anything. I would not hold the SIL to be the final authority on anything, but merely a very influential one. At what point two ways of speaking can be considered two distinct languages is and will continue to be a matter of dispute. There is still room left to add further languages. The 30,000 speakers of Sassarese are certainly not the smallest living group that SIL recognizes in the Romance languages, but as groups get smaller it is understandable that they may never have heard about them. There is much merit to your argument in favour of including Gavoiese(?); you are in a much better position to know the facts than I am here in western Canada. Your reference to hebrew etyma is especially interesting because of its parallel in Sardinian to the jewish versions of the major European languages.
So, my conclusion: Go ahead and add a line about the language of Gavoi at the appropriate place, and its non-recognition by SIL. The details of what makes it linguistically different, however, might be better placed on the Sardinian language page since that page has already been started.

(sorry for late answer)
I completely agree, I wasn't discussing the value of your contribution (I sincerely regret if this appeared in my words - I would instead thank you) :-)
About Sardinian language and its classification, the fact is that the main authors (M.L.Wagner, Campus, Bottiglioni, Spano, Luedtke, Sanna, the first that I can remember) suggest different classifications. Eduardo Blasco Ferrer summarises all of them in the form that is already in the article, but still some intense debate is on.
The point is how to attribute the correct value to each of the possible variants: Sassarese has been recognised as directly a version of Sardinian by some, while this was denied by others (it is indeed a half-way hybrid between logudorese and gallurese, so it happens to be more a filiation of gallurese than a sardinian version aside, but...). Certainly it is not a matter of how many speakers, if not for the presumed proportions of the other groups.
About Gavoese, I will try to find the source where I learned about it, that should contain some details too (I read it some 20 years ago, at least), so just the time for the investigation and I'll gladly add it (nothing of sensational, but something). However, it is not a version but perhaps a particular case, geographically situated close to the border between Logudorese and Campidanese areas, basicly logudorese but with some differences. I mentioned it only because it is certainly particular, and not proposing it as another version.
Also, I will add some details on the Sardinian language page, little by little. - Gianfranco

No offense was ever seen in your comments; they were welcome. Knowledge best advances when gentlemen can sensibly discuss their misunderstandings and potential disagreements. They often find, as we have, that there was no disagreement at all. When I do find offense, I can assure you that my sarcasm is unrestrained. I look forward to your contributions to Sardinian. Eclecticology

I'd just like to say that I was very surprised to see what the article describes as "Romance languages", because, to me, nearly all of those mentioned are dialects rather than languages. I'm not saying that the article is wrong (not being a native speaker of a Romance language, I'm hardly in a position to contradict), but I have studied Latin and Romance philology to degree level, and this doesn't tally with what I was taught. Could someone point me to an authority on the subject? user: Deb

Linguistically speaking, there is no defining difference between what is a "dialect" and what is a "language". Every person speaks their own personal idiolect, which can collectively be grouped into largely similar dialects, which can collectively be grouped into largely similar languages. But, this system isn't very rigorous, and there is often more variation within "dialects" that one might consider to be of the same "language" than between what are considered separate languages.
Commonly cited are the dialect continua in Chinese and German; for instance, Dutch is often considered a separate language despite there being no clear cutoff point between the Swiss German dialects, the High German of southern Germany, the Low German dialects of northern Germany, and Dutch; Dutch and Low German ("different languages") are largely identical while Low German and Swiss German ("the same language") are incomprehensible! So why isn't Teach Yourself Dutch filed under the German Language section in your local bookstore? Mainly because the Netherlands is an independant country; as the saying goes, "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy." The question is political rather than linguistic in nature.
That said... In the particular case of the list on Romance languages, it claims to be based on the classification listed at the SIL Ethnologue. Ethnologue is notorious as a "splitter", dividing languages up as much as possible, perhaps sometimes more than appropriate for all purposes. --Brion VIBBER, Wednesday, May 29, 2002
Thanks for that. I had never heard of SIL but I gather from the web site taht it is primarily a religious organisation rather than an academic institution, and therefore I am not so surprised that I have never heard of the classification. I'm only surprised that we are choosing to follow it here. Deb
Deb, the religious impression is, in my view, accurate. However, from what I have seen of their linguistic work, it is fairly rigorous and reliable as a whole. The fact that it is in a sense a "byproduct" of their (parent organization's?) Bible translation work does not reduce its value as a source of linguistic research. It simply means that there may be cases where one has to be cautious of potential biases induced by their religious-based goals. Just my two cents' worth.  :-) pgdudda
I don't disagree with your assessment, and I didn't mean to imply that they were biased. However, I don't think their idea of what constitutes a "language" is exactly mainstream. I suppose that begs the question of whether wikipedia articles should take an old-fashioned, "conventional" view of knowledge.Deb
Whatever the nature of the SIL codes, could someone maybe create a page here explaining them & their origins, and put a link on the page here? -- Tarquin
Two different points on SIL/Ethnologue. Although their founding purpose was Bible translation, their linguistic credentials are very good. SIL grammars are fundamental works on lots of e.g. Pacific languages, and their Ethnologue classification is good solid work, with just a brief mention at the end of whether Bible translations exist. But, as Brion VIBBER has said, as linguists they're at the extreme end of the 'splitters', dividing and subdividing at every opportunity, and giving a quite false impression that languages can be divided in Stammbaum (family tree) fashion right down to dialect level. Their basic facts can be accepted as pretty authoritative, but they go way too far in seeming to give certainty in classification. I'm going to add a small paragraph giving a brief overview of the main language (as opposed to dialect) divisions. Gritchka 17:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am no expert here, but this:

Latin future tense scrapped, and new future and conditional tenses introduced, based on infinitive+present or imperfect tense of habere.

sounds strange to me when at least French clearly allows to form future tense both by modifying endings as well as composite future (je prendrais, tu prendras, il prendra vs. je vais prendre etc.). Could somebody explain if I understood that paragraph wrong? djmutex 19:12 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it means that the French future is, historically, just a combination of the infinitive plus a conjugated form of habere (well, actually avoir) - je prendrai is really prendre + ai, that is. In Latin they had an infix (-bi- ?) for the future, but that disappeared in Romance languages. That's what I understand that to meanAdam Bishop 19:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks! djmutex 19:31 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This table shows how the future tense evolved in the Romance languages (note that the future tense endings in French evolved from proto-Romance just as habere evolved into avoir etc):

Classical Latin Proto-Romance Italian French
vendam vender-(hab)eō venderò je vendrai
vendēs vender-(hab)ēs venderai tu vendras
vendet vender-(hab)et venderà il vendra
vendḗmus vender-(hab)ḗmus venderemo nous vendrons
vendḗtis vender-(hab)ḗtis venderete vous vendrez
vendent vender-(hab)ent venderanno ils vendront
Romanian doesn't use this type of future tense, having a form similar with English (conjugation of a form of "will" (a voi) + infinitive of verb)
voi vinde
vei vinde
va vinde
vom vinde
veti vinde
vor vinde
Bogdan 19:16, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It is not just Romanian. Other Romance languages also have a periphrastic future, e.g. Sp "(yo) voy a vender", Port. " (eu) vou vender", Fr. "je vais vendre", in addition to the "normal" synthetic future ("venderé", "venderei", "vendrai", etc...).

Mbruno 02:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Romanian really have two cases? I can't speak Romanian, but as far as I know there are five cases in Romanian: Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative and Vocative. There are few Vocative forms, Nominative is almost always the same as Accusative and Genitive is almost always the same as Dative. For example, this is how the pronoun "ea" ("she") is inflected (some alternative forms are omitted):
N. ea
G. ei
D. ei / i
A. ea / o
V. -
Boraczek 16:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. There are five cases. I corrected the article. Bogdan 16:31, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


No, that's wrong. Romanian has only two fully declined cases. It has five pronominal cases, but then, French has at least four (il, le, lui, son). The general view is that Romanian has two cases, one called 'Direct', and one called 'Oblique'. 'Direct' contains the Subject and the Object, and 'Oblique' contains indirect objects, nouns after prepositions, and the possessor of something.
In fact, it's not a matter of being "true" or "wrong". It seems that there are two alternative descriptions of the Romanian case system. Both have some strong and weak points. A weak point of the "five-cases" description is that nouns and adjectives don't have five distinct forms. Two weak points of the "two-cases" description are that it doesn't explain declension of pronouns and that it seems to overlook the vocative forms (what about "bunule copil!" ???). Given these circumstances I removed the information about the number of cases in Romanian. In fact, this information isn't important in this article. At least we agree that Romanian does have cases. Boraczek 21:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Eonaviegan" dialect is never [1] mentioned outside wikipedia. Why ? Bogdan | Talk 13:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Try eonaviego. It seems a neologism for a language spoken inthe area of the rivers Eo and Navia. Maybe Eo-Navian?

I really wish to know why non-speakers of Portuguese treat Brazilian Portuguese has a seperated language. I've seen a book on Amazon, that even said that the language would break soon. From where it comes these ideas/myths? It is from France or the USA? Portuguese is the official language of Brazil, it is the same has in Portugal. Nether Brazilians nether Portuguese believe that they are seperated, they are fully inteligible. Same grammar, same lexicon. Politicians undestand they are the same. I wish to know why internacionally, people always reffer to brazilian Portuguese has a seperate language or dialect. Give me your oppinion, i'm really curious. Pedro 02:22, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well here's a good article discussing just why soap operas from Portugal are being dubbed into Brazilian Portuguese and a lot of detailed related issues. — Hippietrail 13:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with language, that's only a sad case, that shooked people in both countries, but that was a decision from the Portuguese companie that wants to produce soap operas in Brazil, and to Brazil. The soap operas are showed dubbed and not dubbed, if the TV set has that possibility. They wanted that the public to feel that was a local product. Many Brazilians wanted to ear the accent, what Brazilians are not used to in Brazil, that's why some think that not showing dubbed was important. Most Brazilians only come to ear European Portuguese in Portugal, and they get used to it quit fast. Brazilians are one of the biggest immigrant communities in Portugal, due to language obviously, and because they have a special statute in Portugal's law, like Portuguese have in Brazil. Brazilians are now getting aware of Portugal and the countries are reproaching. Possibly, the Italian community in southern Brazil that dislike Portuguese influence in Brazil spreads that in the Internet. The country has lots of problems with education and some Brazilians believe that. If you say that they don’t speak Portuguese to northern Brazilians, they will find that pretty offensive (they are those who feel more connected Portugal) that kind of information has nothing to do with linguistics. I've received Brazilian MSG saying that they found the Portuguese accent beautiful. Brazilians in Portugal, newcomers, can easily understand any dialect. And Portuguese dialects are quit different from each other. I really never spoke with a Brazilian that said that he doesn’t understand me. And I talked to an Italian origin one. In Portugal, National Geographic Channel that broadcasts from Brazil, most of the time is dubbed in European Portuguese, because the company wants to people feel the product as local. The same happens with Discovery Channel. I find that practice very odd. But in the Internet, there most be some other motive for that. Maybe 1000 years from now, Brazilian will be a language, who knows, but not in the next centuries. That will be very odd to us in Portugal. I talk with Brazilians everyday, and I think we talk the same language. LOL. They with their accent, me with mine's. Much like when I talk to someone from Lisbon. It's very much the same. Canção Nova is a Catholic TV channel that broadcasts from Brazil sometimes boradcasts from Portugal, so they ear the Portuguese accent and it is not dubbed. There is a Portuguese TV received in Brazil, but that broadcasts only on some cable TV. Pedro 01:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

By the way, we in Portugal say For "I love you". "Eu amo-te" or "eu te amo". The first is more used in Writing and the second in Speech or poetry. Placing the "te" in the back of the verb or in the front of it, is a Portuguese language nature. People are talking about a language that they dont understand, comparing Portuguese with Russian, for the god's sake! And in Brazil, it is widely popular the second form, but the first is also used.

The use of the geround. It deppends on the dialects. In southern Portugal, next to Lisbon. People say "Estou te amando" (like Brazilians do) I'm loving you. And most of Portugal prefers to say "Eu estou a te amar" (what happens also in Brazil). There is no difference only that the accent is different. Sorry, but what a stupidity! People should learn the language first, before guessing. Pedro 01:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

    • By the way, my question is the same. Are American companies trying to divided the language? or the French because Portuguese became more spoken than French in the past century or some other reason? Between my dialect and the Lisbon's the difference is much gratter that of Lisbon and Rio de Janeiro. That I assure you, and thought we understand all pretty well. I'll try to put credible info into English language throw wikipedia.Pedro 01:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I've talked to an italian Origin Brazilian and he garanteed that the italo-Brazilians don't normally think that nonsence. USA or France origin?...Pedro 21:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Pedro, allow me to clear some things. I am the author of the article that Hippietrail references. First, let me tell you that I speak Portuguese quite well, as well as Spanish, French and Italian. Therefore, I know what I'm talking about, and what I say is no stupidity. Ora, se quiseres, pa, escrevo-te em português. First, I am not comparing Portuguese to Russian. I am saying that Portuguese, when put aside its neighbors, Galician, Castilian, Catalan, and even Provencal and Italian, it has a very distinct output sound quality. I say that the close central unrounded vowel is absent in the rest of the Iberian tongues and as well as in the Brazilian variety of Portuguese, but this vowel is common in Slavic languages. Indeed, I've been told by a few Russians themselves that European Portuguese, especially from certain parts in Southern Portugal and the Açores, have a Slavic resonance to them. Now, "Eu amo-te" or "Amo-te" is the standard in Portugal. In Brazil, it is "Eu te amo" or "Amo-te" indeed. However, what you would hear in educated speech is either "Te amo" or "Amo você", or even "Lhe amo". Once a Brazilian told me that if you were to tell "Amo-te" to a Brazilian female, she would not take you seriously, or, he said, jokingly, if you were a couple, she would dump you. "Amo-te" is indeed used in Brazil though it's rare, outside formal speech. I mean, you could say the same thing about "vós sois"; it is standard in both Portugal and Brazil, but is it used anymore (outside regligious texts, and maybe poetry)? Or, even, "tu és" is standard in Brazil as well, but do you ever hear anyone use it (outside a few secluded regions)? Very rarely, and if you do, it's usually of the kind "tu é", with the verb conjugated in the third person. The construction "Amo você" (or "Vejo você") would be unheard of in Portugal as a standard, even though in Brazil it has entered standard non-formal writing, and in all situations in speech. It is also true that in Southern Portugal, in the Algarve, one finds the gerund used when in the rest of Portugal one would hear the infinitive. Like "Estou comendo", in Portugal, is found dialectally, the standard language uses "Estou a comer", while in Brazil, the standard is "Estou comendo". Now, "Estou a comer", I have never ever heard a Brazilian write or say that, at least with the meaning of "Estou comendo". So, pa, I'm not guessing. What I write in my blog are truly my experiences, what I live through everyday. With the Portuguese Soap Opera business, I did not wake up one day and suddenly decided to write that. Not at all. If you read carefully that entry, I discuss my experiences with both Portuguese and Brazilians. From what I gather, your position is not only against myself or my article, but rather against anyone with the view that Brazilian and European Portuguese have grown apart. This to the point where there are people, both linguists and non-linguists, who label them separate languages. Again, in my entry, I try to not to side with either view, rather listing the facts as they are today. However, at the end, I do say "their common language indeed." If you ask me, they are indeed the same language. I follow myself the European standard of the language, and I always speak to Brazilians as well, and they understand somewhat well (once, I did have to speak Spanish to be understood). Nonetheless, as I say in my blog, they admit to all those things that you negate. It is true that a Brazilian will get offended if you tell them that what they speak is not Portuguese, or that they speak Brasileiro. However, the vast majority will make it dead clear that they speak Português do Brasil, Brazilian Portuguese, implying that they themselves are aware of the distance and differences between their variety and the European one. Just like one Brazilian told me (again, it's in my blog), that it's great that I speak Portuguese, but that I should consider learning Brazilian Portuguese. I tell you, I speak with a very genuine pronunciation based on the Lisbon dialect. I've had several Brazilians wanting me to speak with a Brazilian pronunciation, and, to leave the tu altogether, and use você for familiar address. I'll admit that I even feel odd at times using estar + infinitive for the present progressive with Brazilians, because their standard is estar + gerund, just like in Spanish and Italian, and since I speak those languages, I'm more used to the latter construction. You can not sit there and write that "there is no difference, only the accent is different" because, if you're Portuguese, you know well that's not so. In my article, I mostly address the standard forms of the language, and even these are different. It's true that certain accords have tried unsuccessfully to consider correct the standard of both countries in either country. Though as of now, that's not so. I'll end by reiterating that I personally consider both varities to be indeed the same language. So your comments about "the Americans trying to divide the language" do not apply to me or my entry. Once again, I'll tell you that I simply listed my experiences, things as they are currently, without any horns and whistles. Amongst Brazilians, there is the linguist Marcos Bagno who has done several studies about there being today a Brazilian language. If you read the article from several newspapers, including Folha, the Vice-President of the Band, one of the networks that broadcasts soap operas dubladas (and not dobradas as in Portugal), says that the reason for dubbing the soaps is that "O brasileiro não entende o português de Portugal" (Brazilians don't understand European Portuguese). That is in my entry as well. You ought to read it more carefully. Now, I did not make up that quote, or said it, so you can't take out your rage at me or the "Americans trying to divide the language"; it was said by a Brazilian. It's true that the ultimate goal is to make product as local as possible. For Spanish, shows and movies made in the US are usually dubbed separately in the main regions, including Spain. The same with Quebec and France. But, these are products in English, and these companies are trying to make as much money as possible and you cannot sell that much if the people can't connect and identify themselves with the product fully. But what about when is supposedly in the 'same' language and dubbed? I tell you, soaps and movies made in Mexico (or any Hispanic country) are always broadcast in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Spain, even the United States, where are there are Hispanics of all nationalities, without any dubbing. Sure, the expressions and accents are different, but they are understood. As you say yourself, it all has to do with exposure. The Brazilians are in this situation because they have had very little contact with what has happened in Portugal. Enthusiastically I say in my blog, that hopefully soon the Brazilians will more exposed to the Portuguese culture and accent, and the two varities will grow closer. First you ask yourself a question, then somebody gives you a reference and you burst into a rage. Well, you're barking up at the wrong tree. Once more I find it necessary to say that to me the two varities are the same language, in my article having simply discussed the reality between them, as well as the differences. And sure, we can go indefinitely discussing the differences between European and American Spanish, British and American English, Parisian and Quebecois French, but, in my article I was simply surprised by the decision, whomever took it, of the Portuguese soaps being dubbed into the Brazilian variety; that's it... nothing else. Therefore, I don't see the "stupidity." But if anything, you won't gain anything trying to convince me, because, for millionth time, to me, they are the same language, but good luck trying to convince the linguists with that view, and authors whose books you found on Amazon, etc. The fact about this is there are indeed differences, which you again deny there ever being any, that I discussed in my article.

By
Eddie V. O. (Romanika)

To Eddie: Québec movies and sitcoms are also frequently subtitled when shown on French or international French TV (e.g. TV5). Do you also think the Québécois and the French speak different languages ? BTW, Brazilian soaps are NEVER dubbed/subtitles as far as I know in Portugal. A few Australian shows on the other hand should IMHO be subtitled for the sake of an American audience (I personally have a hard time understanding their accent!). Mbruno 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Every credible Portuguese or Brazilian linguist don’t follow that. But there are possibly some reminiscent views from the past regime, which denied the language, and called it as "língua nacional" (national language). "Pá" in northern Portugal is a "shovel" (I used a translation mechanism). It’s used in construction. I ask are you a native speaker of Portuguese? Are you aware that we pronounce very differently many words? For the final s, I (myself) pronounce it differently due that this area has influence from two dialects. I pronounce as "Sh" (mostly), "j" (sometimes) and "Z" (rarely) And "Vós" is still widely used in here (northern Portugal). About Brazilians that don’t understand the Portuguese of Portugal talk to every Brazilian that ever ear it. They'll answer you. I talked about educational problems. How can you affirm that from a single case? I see the "stupidity". I'm sorry. I've heard and know many Portuguese accents, which is why I find it stupid. And for the gerund is not used in the "Algarve" but in "Alentejo". We in the rest of Portugal also use it, but never with the verb(s) "to be" (what happens in Brazil, Alentejo and Africa), we only use it in poetry.

About the linguist theory that supports that "stupidity": There's a Portuguese linguist that says that Portuguese is derived from "Cunio" the language from a kingdom in the Algarve, before the roman invasion. He even says that it influenced Latin. Do you know what that is? Pride. Nationalist pride. I don’t need to "trying to convince the linguists with that view, and authors whose books you found on Amazon, etc." they even said that Cape Verde speaks that "language". Very good linguists!!! Is better ignoring them. They are the same "linguists" who says that Spanish is similar to Portuguese, and people come to Portugal speaking Spanish and they don’t know why the locals ignore them, don’t understand or offend them. I saw a book, not various saying that, but I was just amazed. About being odd, it really is that why a petition of Brazilians and Portuguese was made to stop it. As for the "local" thing: Brazilian Portuguese is only dubbed in cable TV channels of US controlled. In Portuguese TV or Brazilian TV channels the sound is the original one. But that is really embarrassing. --Pedro 00:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

    • A note: Spanish is very similar with Portuguese, but some American authors almost takes that similarity to unrealistic patterns. So they think that speaking Spanish in Portugal is acceptable, what surely is not. And about the "vós" not being used. Is another thing that shocks me. Portuguese language is not that simple. Vós is very commonly used. I used excessively, now I prefer to say "vocês" or convosco. Are you saying that we in the North are from the past? "Tu" is used a lot in Northern and Extreme South Brazil, were "você" is almost not used. We in Portugal prefer, to use both, but separately. "Tu" is for friends. "Você" to others with some respect. I've always spoke Portuguese, but everyday I learn something new. I've a teacher that said: "You can learn English or French faster than you can master Portuguese"
  • I've just watched a Portuguese man speaking in Brazil representing the European Union, in Globonews (Brazilian National News Channel) without legends or dubbing. -Pedro 01:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

First, the construction estar + gerund is indeed used in the Algarve region as well. I know people people there who use it frequently, including constructions such as em chengandes, falas comigo. And of course the gerund is used in other cases, standard in Portugal, but we are talking the present progressive here. I am well aware that vós is used in some parts in Northern Portugal. However, I said that when it comes to the standard language of Portugual, vós is dialectal. In the standard idiom, this has been replaced by vocês, even though, as I say in my blog once again, vós survives in its oblique and possessive forms, i.e. Estou a vos dizer que [vocês] têm que trazer os vossos livros. Indeed, in Brazil tu survives in some regions (true, parts of the North, like Pará, and in the South, in Rio Grande do Sul), and, is dialectal in this country's standard idiom. Você is the standard form; if Brazilians were to read an ad containing the form with tu, most of them would feel they're reading something from Camões period. In other regions (like Rio de Janeiro), nonetheless, it is used everyday though conjugated incorrectly, i.e. tu falou muito. And I also know that você is used in Portugal, of course; though we both know not for the same context. As far as those "linguists" that you say claim that Spanish and Portuguese are excessively similar and that nationalistic pride has something in this, is not my problem. I write without taking any sides. Go back and read my blog a few times. You'll see I list things as they are. In the Soap Opera entry, I listed the differences that we know exist. Again, I'm the first to tell you that Brazilian and European Portuguese are one language. I talk to Brazilians all the time using the European variety. If I remotely thought that they these two were separate languages, I would speak two different ways: brasileiro with Brazilians, with expressions and their standard, and, português with Portuguese, again, with their expressions and standard. However, I don't do that. I speak Portuguese, period, acknowledging that there are differences. You cannot call my article "stupid" because what I state is accurate. You ought to be more respectful of others' work. It is not my fault that people somewhere else are declaring the two main varieties of Portuguese as different languages, or radically different dialects. For instance, nearly every translation made for Internet portals having two Portuguese ones: Portuguese (Pt), and, Portuguese (Br). Now, who took that decision??? God knows who. One more time in case you didn't get it: for me, they ARE the same language!!! We could indeed do fine with just one translation, despite the differences, it will be understood. Nonetheless, a few days ago in translating for Google's Gmail, I found a message by someone, a Portuguese, who wrote in the translation forum: "Yep, all the help pages in portuguese (of Portugal) were translated by a brazillian! Who was the clever guy? I already started to correct it. Are there some portuguese folks that are willing to help? Thanks!"
Now, why is this done? Maybe they consider the differences too great to merit them two separate translations. And you say that you just saw someone on TV without any dubbing... well, who says that everything from Portugal is dubbed? I clearly say in my article that an educated Brazilian has virtually no problem communicating with an educated Portuguese. I've seen countless Portuguese newscasts with Brazilian correspondants (in Brazil), speaking live with the lisboeta anchors back in Portugal. You've gone off-topic in your replies. I have been talking about the differences that exist amongst the two language varieties, even though, as I've been saying from the beginning, there is only one language, as we both agree: Portuguese. Nice talking to you.
Eddie V. O. (Romanika)

  • I classified as stupid, the book. Read again what you've talk about "vós". It’s unrealistic. We learn “Vós” at school. We learn how to spell the “ou” and “ei” has they are written, what people from Lisbon don’t. So… Standard Portuguese is not the dialect of Lisbon. But these days, that is gaining force especially in TV. "Vós" is not used in some parts of the North, it is used extensively; It is also used in northeastern Brazil. But it really tends do disappear, but I believe that will not occur, nether as the dialect. About the two versions of the language, I work in Software and that's a practice since the mid-1990s. And, again, American companies do it. If software companies used the “Brazilian rich people dialect”, no one would notice and they [the chauvinist Portuguese] will certainly like. Instead they use words like "deletar" or "insertar" when Portuguese words exists (Apagar and inserir) deletar (delete) and insertar (insert) are from English. Tough, in the spoken language, I use words like "crashar" or "logar" certainly I won’t write it in documents! That as being also raised by Brazilian philologists has a problem. In the Internet, the companies are using vernacular Brazilian Portuguese, what google also does. But there's another problem, software companies don’t use the gerund when they are obligatory for Portugal. In windows PT version exists "a iniciar" when it should be "iniciando", like in Brazil, people are excessively trying to really do two different versions of the language, sort of splitting what can not be spitted using symnoms. And again for the case of Brazilians and Portuguese (what I believe that are kids, in the case of Portugal) that say nonsense about the ways Portuguese is written they are, fortunnaly, a minority. But they do some noise on the Internet, that doesn’t exist in the "real" world. I use the google bar that I found in the Brazilian Google and what a finding, its pretty cool. And I thought "what a stupid company, why they don’t put it in Portuguese Google". I’m not defending what already is common sence linguistically and politically, but this all movement is very, very strange. And Portuguese and Spanish are not that similar. Spoken spanish its pretty different. I speak Spanish since early, but I don’t like to see Spanish TV, because I don’t feel very confortable (I must think a bit), I see Braazilian TV (like many Portuguese) do, because it is the same language, and we don’t have any problem in understanding even lexicon (we dont need to think). The construction of the language has in fact converged, I notice that in the way that I speak today and people that surronds me, we are know using você as if is tu, I don’t as a principle, except in work, because everyone treats everyone has você. But the sounds (the accent) we don’t do it, because some sounds are similar to rural Portuguese, that’s why some Portuguese and African don’t like (I’m talking about reading the final “e”w hen with accentuation and not meaning “and” as if it is an “i”, like old Portuguese and like the elderly do). In my accent we do it sometimes, but it is desapiering. And if you don't know, Angolan accent was extremely similar to the Brazilian, but is shifting towards the Portuguese (nation). But not vernacular São Tomean, few days ago I eard São Tomean Portuguese, I taugh it was Brazilian. For the differences in writing Portuguese, an agreement was done to eliminate most differences, but it has not yet entedered into force, because of financial/educational problems in the African countries (as they say), It was approved by Portugal, Cape Verde and Brazil, it is waiting aproval by the rest of the African Portuguese Speaking countries. East Timor asked to accelerate the process, but it hasn’t. It's going slowly, that’s why these countries are 3rd world countries. Pedro 09:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

"is dialectal in this country's standard idiom. Você is the standard form; if Brazilians were to read an ad containing the form with tu, most of them would feel they're reading something from Camões period."

  • That only shows that the person is ignorant. In that days, "tu" was not very used.
  • I've read better the Google's Brazilian Portuguese http://www.google.com.br/intl/pt-BR/faq.html#display It could be used in Portugal, it is pretty good. Except for the English included and the orthographic differences. Even if we in Portugal use the English word "link" we write in documents "ligação". But even using Brazilian Portuguese, people dont give a damn if that's from Brazil or Portugal. I've have a website ending with .com.br that is for both countries. Many Brazilians ask if that is European Portuguese or Brazilian Portuguese, they dont know. One can easily notice because of the "c" ao "p" letters that are deaf in the Portuguese language, Brazil eliminated it, Portugal, due fears that it would distance more Portuguese from Latin, didn't. Now they are willing to remove them. As for the "facto" we in Portugal pronounce it as "fato" or "faketo" (I prefer the last, but most dont). And we dont confuse "facto" with "fato". Much like "verão" (summer) and "verão (You will see).

___________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Okay. I'm Brazilian and here are my 2 cents on some of these issues:

1. I have never seen anyone disputing the fact that the language spoken in the United States is English, and yet the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese are similar to those that divide American English and British English.

I'm not trying to add a political dimension to this stupid, pointless discussion. The simple fact is, ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECTABLE LINGUIST, PROFESSOR, AUTHOR or JOURNALIST - just to mention a few categories that use the language as a professional tool :-) - would dispute the fact that we Brazilians speak PORTUGUESE. In fact, ask any five-year-old what language he/she speaks.

2. Most if not all of us WOULD INDEED UNDERSTAND what a Portuguese is saying. That said, I live in Brazilian State where it's often difficult to understand what people from rural areas are saying (Minas Gerais).

Brazilians, even those who live in the smallest towns, have always been exposed to European Potuguese (through millions of Portuguese immigrants). Some regional Portuguese accents may pose a degree of difficulty, but that's it. The decision to resort to dubbing a Portuguese soap is ridiculous. Several Portuguese actors and actresses have appeared in Brazilian soaps and they acted with their accents. In fact, a Portuguese trying to 'soften' their accent to sound more 'Brazilian' (by a previous poster's rationale to be more intelligible) would also sound ridiculous.


2. "Tu" is WIDELY used in Brazil. A few examples: it is used in everyday language in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina; Rio de Janeiro; all of the Northeastern States and througout the Amazon basin in the States of Pará and Amazonas. THat would cover about what, 80 to 100 million people at the very least.

"Tu" is not commonly used in central Brazil (including Minas Gerais) and, most notably, in São Paulo. This, it seems, is why most foreigners seem to believe that Brazilians only use "você" and its related verbal forms (3rd person) instead of "tu".

Also, if you take personal pronoum usage and the difficulty in understanding some aspects of the spoken language as examples of a supposedly large divide between Portuguese as spoken in Brazil and Portugal, as opposed to the linguistic "unity" in spanish-speaking Latin America, think again. I think Spanish language programmes from Argentina would need to de dubbed to be perfectly understood elsewhere in the continent (with the possible exceptions of Uruguay and maybe Chile); and what to say of the different usage, in Spanish, of "tú", "usted" and "vos"? In Argentina, Chevrolet claims to be "siempre con vos". In Chile or Mexico, it is "siempre contigo". Does that mean our neighbours speak "Argentinian" instead of Spanish, or that they can't understand or be understood by nationals from other spanish-speaking countries?

Finally, a note of warning to people who take São Paulo newspapers, and "Folha de São Paulo" in particular, as examples of standard Brazilian Portuguese: "Folha" is written in what seems to be its own language. People even joke about that - it's written in "Folhês" instead of Português. In "folhês" a fábrica (plant) becomes "planta" (can you guess where they take this from?). Ora, planta in Portuguese is either a plant in its vegetable sense :-) or a blueprint for a building! So please be careful when employing examples from São Paulo newspapers, or when taking their local variation of the language as the standard Brazilian form.

3. In written form, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between Brazilian and European Portuguese without some tell-tale words and expressions that are written differently. Gerundisms are indeed a feature of Portuguese AS SPOKEN IN BRAZIL (as opposed to "Brazilian language"), since it is not exclusive to "Brazilian Portuguese".

I don't know about the situation in Portugal, but most Brazilian newsstands sell Portuguese magazines undistinguished from their Brazilian counterparts. Personally I read 'Evasões' and 'Automotor' - which I first bought several years in the belief that it was a new Brazilian car magazine, possibly one featuring european cars (the numberplates were always replaced by 'Automotor' plates). It was only when I found out that the cars had "travões" intead of "freios" for brakes that I realized it was a Portuguese publication.

4. Nobody in Brazil even argues about the fact Brazil and Portugal share the same language. Only foreigners do. Brazilians may exaggerate their difficulty with some aspects of European Portuguese. In the same way a Brazilian would tell you that they like something by saying "Eu adoro isso!". That doesn't mean they adore something in the same way that and English speaker would (even though "adoração" - adoration - still carries the same weight as in English).

5. Portuguese does have a distinct FUTURE tense.

6. I've never heard of anyone asking somebody to speak SPANISH, of all languages, instead of Portuguese (European). I'm sorry, but the person who found himself/herself in that situation must've spoken with a very strong 'foreign' accent. Besides (in Brazil at least) most people would be somewhat offended if a foreigner would try and speak Spanish with them. You should always try Portuguese (as bad as yours may be) or even English before you try Spanish, ESPECIALLY if you're not from Latin America.

That's it. This whole debate is really pointless as the two countries speak the same language, albeit with local differences, and the situation is likely to remain that way for a very long time as the Portuguese language is a VERY strong part of Brazil's national identity and one of the features (if not THE feature) that sets us apart from the rest of America. It is also a major factor of national unity - as all Brazilians from all regions can understand each other perfectly.

As to foreigners debating the differences between the language as spoken in Brazil or Portugal (as opposed to "the languages spoken in Brazil or Portugal", implying that they're different) I suggest they either focus this debate on English or Spanish or better yet amuse themselves by creating their very own variant of Portuguese...

[anonoymous]

  • Yes, I get to know a lot of things after my inocent edits in here. They based their claims in a ridiculous website that claims the most remarkable things, but I understand them, they don't speak the language, so they believe in what they are told, but in reality there is a girl in the net and her friend who's favourite hobby is to say these things to English and German speakers (she speaks both languages) and laugh afterwords. I also get to know somethings about Spanish, and after several investigations and after learning things from linguists, Portuguese is in fact one os the most unified international languages. I think the ridiculous things written on the net in English, are good, for the various governments to act in deffense of the language. In fact, both governments are keen to make more literary and academic interaction. About Brazilians not hearing Portuguese accent, that is today not true, since many Portuguese are now appearing in shows and soap operas in the main Brazilian TV networks and many Brazilians are comming and going. It is obvious that there's no problem of communication between the two peoples in the real world, besides the occasional hoo do you call that a "comboio" we call it a "trem"!. In fact, it is much easier to a Portuguese understand a Brazilian than many Portugal's dialects. -Pedro 15:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • I really got surprised with the distinction made for the Portuguese language,it looks like biased information what you are you trying to give on this page. All languages should be treated equally, the discution if Brazilians understand Eu Portuguese is ridiculus.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

On mutual intelligibility between European and Brazilian Portuguese, here are my two cents:

  • European Portuguese (EP) speakers seem to understand Brazilians without any major difficulty. Brazilian soaps for example are never dubbed or subtitled on Portuguese TV.
  • Differences in grammar and usage generally are not a major impediment to mutual communication because most educated Brazilians actually learn standard Portuguese grammar at school, including some features like the "tu" verb forms that they normally do not use in every-day speech. That is analogous BTW to an Argentinean learning Spanish "tú" and "vosotros" verb forms at school while, in ordinary speech, he/she would use the morphologically distinct "vos" and "ustedes" forms instead.
  • Diffences in phonology however make it harder for a Brazilian speaker to understand certain EP accents. In particular, the reduction of unstressed vowels in European Portuguese is a major complication for Brazilians and may cause them to occasionally miss a word or two when listening to someone from Portugal. Generally speaking, difficulties with Portuguese pronunciation apply to Brazilians of all social classes, but, again, the more educated the speaker is (or the greater his/her basic vocabulary is), the easier it will be for him/her to follow EP speech. I personally watch Portuguese TV on satellite without subtitles, and I don't have trouble understanding what is being said. That might not be the case however for all Brazilians (especially uneducated ones), hence the need to subtitle Portuguese programs on free-to-air Brazilian TV. It should be noted though that Portuguese immigrants historically moved in large numbers to Brazil (over 1.5 million between 1850 and 1960) and, generally speaking, Portuguese people living in Brazil and speaking with an European accent never had problems to make themselves understood, even in small towns in rural Brazil.
  • As mentioned by other commentators, differences between regional dialects of other European languages are generally far greater than the differences between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In fact, the so-called "dialects" for example of German or Dutch are actually not mutually intelligible and, strictly speaking, should be considered separate languages (like standard German and Swiss German for instance). Roughly speaking, the differences between standard Brazilian Portuguese and standard European Portuguese, especially in the written variety, but also in the formal spoken modality (e.g. TV newscasts), are comparable in scale to the differences between standard British and American English. The differences on the other hand between the substandard (popular) Brazilian vernacular and standard EP are probably similar in magnitude to the differences between, let's stay, standard British English and African American vernacular English. Educated colloquial BP (the language spoken by the urban middle-class and used in most TV soaps) differs on the other hand from EP as much as Rioplatense Spanish differs from standard (Castillian) Spanish or colloquial Québécois French differs from the Parisian variety. BTW, Québécois movies and sitcoms are almost always subtitled when shown on French or international French television (e.g. TV5) as Parisian French speakers struggle to understand Canadian accents and colloquialisms.
  • Being Brazilian myself, I must confess I am personally annoyed by the way so-called "Brazilian Portuguese" is taught as a foreign language in the United States, especially at the beginner's or even intermediate level. From my experience, most teachers of Portuguese as a foreign language in U.S. universities are either Americans or U.S-based (expatriate) Brazilians who subscribe to an ideological view (sponsored by the likes of Milton Azevedo and Marcos Bagno) that Brazil, like Switzerland or Haiti (!), is a diglossic country where the spoken language (or "L-variety") and the corresponding written language (or "H-variety") are not the same and may not even be mutually intelligible (like French and Creole in Haiti for instance, or the aforementioned example of standard written German and spoken Swiss German). Based on that ideological premise, U.S-based Portuguese teachers teach what they perceive as the "L-variety" and, progressively, introduce the "H-variety", normally only in advanced grammar or literature classes. Some grammar points like "tu" verb forms are probably never introduced at all, based on the argument that "they do not exist in Brazil". At the same time, students are encouraged by their teachers to use colloquial BP features which, although indeed very common in Brazil (even among educated speakers), are nonetheless substandard based on prescriptive school grammar. Typical examples would include "ele/ela" replacing clitic pronouns "o/a" as direct objects or the combination of "você" with the 2nd person oblique pronoun "te". I am not an expert on foreign language instruction, but it would appear to me that the most reasonable thing to do is to teach students the standard language first and then, when they have already mastered it, point to them the differences between the standard and colloquial/familiar speech or even specific regional dialects. U.S. Portuguese teachers seem to do exactly the opposite though, and, in the process, not only deprive their students of linguistic skills that could be used in a broader, international Portuguese-speaking area (e.g. Portugal, Lusophone Africa), but also make it harder for them to be able to read simple Brazilian newspaper articles or understand even common Brazilian TV programs where a more "standard" language is used. 161.24.19.82 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the main page inside the mini world map, I see that Ethiopia is marked as having Italian influences in its language. This is untrue! The language there comes from an older, distinctly African language named Geez. Please correct the coloring!

I think it is saying that the Italian language can still be found in use in Ethiopia (although I would have thought that it would be sporadic at best). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing features

I think a heading "Distinguishing features" should be added since there is already such a section but you hardly notice its introductory paragrah since it appears to belong to the previous section.

Also in this section it would be interesting to see how the various languages use verbs for "to be". I know Spanish has "ser" and "estar" and I'm 99% sure that Portuguese uses them in an almost identical way. I also believe that the other languages have cognate words which may or may not be used in similar ways any more. Could anybody illustrate this situation? — Hippietrail 09:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Ok Hippie, I've put in a bunch of distinguishing features. As for "ser" and "estar", I mentioned it briefly as a distinguishing feature, and you'll find them discussed to death under Romance copula. Enjoy. Steverapaport 08:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] central "Western Romance by default"?

I've been trying to tidy and clarify, but I'm flummoxed by this statement in the article:

Languedocian Occitan could be tagged as the central "Western Romance by default".

Can anyone offer enlightenment? Man vyi 14:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


I don't really like it much, but the best I could do is to offer a pointer to Vulgar Latin where the central dialect and variations are discussed in detail. Steverapaport

[edit] Northern African Romance

Northern African (extinct by the 15th century)'

Couldn't find any reference to a Romance language in Africa to have survived antiquity. Was there really such a language to survive as late as the 15th century? If not, we should delete it from the list. Bogdan | Talk 22:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there was such a language - I seem to recall al-Bakri (11th century) mentioning Latin speakers in North Africa - but certainly not as later as the 15th century. - Mustafaa 19:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm also pretty sure. The fact that you couldnt find, that doesnt mean that it doesnt exists. Duh! -Pedro 21:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the user who added this didn't have an account, so it's hard to ask him for his source. But this article says that, amazingly, Roman institutions survived in Africa until the turn of the 8th century. So Latin undoubtedly survived for a time, the only question is whether it had a specifically African form. --Erauch 00:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romance Papyrus

Romance Papyrus
Romance Papyrus

Does anyone know for sure if the above mentioned document is a written in 2 century bc in greece in a romantic unknown language, or is purely greek?

The evidence for clearly distinguished Romance languages is usually dated to the 8th-9th centuries AD. The Oath of Strasbourg is one of the earliest known Romance texts. Man vyi 20:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~True. It is in Greek. The term romance refers, in this case, to a literary style, not a language. Thanks youCristianChirita 11:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian neuter

I hit Enter by mistake while writing the comment to my edit about Italian neuter... :-) Anyway, I'll explain shortly here: Italian "l'uovo" / "le uova", "il ginocchio" / "le ginocchia", and a few other nouns are definitely neuter, although they are traditionally taught and thought of as "irregular nouns that are masculine in the singular and [sometimes] feminine in the plural". The very neuter plural -a ending is there, however, and I think that it is the case that Romanian neuters work exactly the same way (except that there is more of them, I suppose).

LjL 21:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had heard of this from my brother, who studied a bit of Italian. His teacher just called it "an irregularity that you have to learn by heart". :) This should be mentioned as a note, here and in Italian language. Note, however, that when a pattern of inflection is so rare and circumscribed, both traditional grammars and sensible linguistic studies usually agree on calling it "an irregularity". Cf English "irregular plurals" oxen, children, brethren. --Pablo D. Flores 01:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed a "vestigial" part of the Italian language. With a few exceptions, nouns that were neuter became either masculine or feminine. The neuter gender is much more common in Romanian, where an important part of the nouns are neuter. such as oul / ouăle. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 07:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I dunno. Under your definition of "vestigial", how many words following an inflection pattern are needed for that pattern not to be vestigial? Mind you, I agree that, pragmatically, using the term "vestigial" may be fine, but I think that neuter is present enough in Italian to warrant a mention as neuter (and not simply as an irregular fom).
The main objection to the existence of an "Italian neuter" would be, in my mind, the fact that neuter nouns actually look, behave and smell like masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. However, Romanian works exactly this way, too.
Also, I think I've read on a Spanish grammar (and on Wikipedia, too) that Spanish has retained neuter in the form of the article "lo" (in front of abstract concepts and/or substantivated nouns). If this warrants being called "neuter", I think the Italian nouns do as well...
In any case, I even disagree with teaching "neuter" nouns as though they were irregular nouns. This is completely subjective, but I think it's always better to give a rule, when there is one (even if it applies to a very limited set of items), than to stamp "irregular" everywhere. Just say (in, for example, a textbook):
While most nouns in Italian are either feminine or masculine, there are a few that derive directly from Latin neuter (2nd declension). These have -o in the singular (where they behave as though they were masculine), and -a in the plural (where they behave as feminine). A list follows:
...
If the student knows Latin, this will ring a bell; if she doesn't, the day she decides to learn it it might ring a bell; if she knows or learns other Indo-European languages, the -a plural ending will hopefully ring a bell. And that's good, I think. And in any case, even if no bell is... uh... rung? (well, weren't we talking about irregularities?), I think our brain is better prepare to learn something that is presented as a rule, rather than an exception. Again, this is 100% subjective, I know.
Besides, I have modified Italian language as well; have a look if you want. I'll re-read it right now and perhaps add the "vestigial" concept to my edit.
A hopefully comprehensive list of Italian "neuter" nouns, for reference:
  • il braccio / le braccia
  • il labbro / le labbra
  • il dito / le dita
  • il ginocchio / le ginocchia
  • l'orecchio / le orecchia (seldom used)
  • il corno / le corna
  • il ciglio / le ciglia
  • l'osso / le ossa
  • il membro / le membra
  • il budello / le budella
  • l'uovo / le uova
  • il muro / le mura (apparently doesn't come from a Latin neuter?)
  • il riso / le risa
  • il lenzuolo / le lenzuola
  • il fuso / le fusa (archaic meaning of "fuso")
  • il fondamento / le fondamenta
  • il gesto / le gesta
  • il grido / le grida
  • l'urlo / le urla
  • il filo / le fila
  • il paio / le paia
  • il tergo / le terga
  • il calcagno / le calcagna
  • il cuoio / le cuoia
  • il vestigio / le vestigia
  • le interiora
The grammatical gender of a noun is defined only by how one must inflect the articles and adjectives that go with it. By that criterion there are only two genders in Italian, masculine and feminine. The nouns above do not have a third "neuter" gender. "Braccio" is definitely masculine, since it requires masculine articles and adjectives (il braccio è grosso); "braccia" is feminine for the same reason (le braccia sono grosse). The simplest way to describe the situation is to say that, for a small set of nouns, the singular form is masculine while the plural form (or one of the plural forms) is feminine. That is very different from the "neuter" gender of German, say, where "neuter" nouns require a separate set of articles and distinct adjective inflections. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that some of the people here understand this fact, but from the discussion, it's clear that some don't. The fact that Italian -o singular / -a plural nouns seem to be half mascluine / half feminine is because they are all descended from the Latin neuter nouns which were -um singular / -a plural. After Italian speakers stopped recognizing the neuter gender, they still had these weird 'mixed' nouns, and calling them 'irregular' is just something that people do when they no longer understand the reasons for why a word is the way it is. Spanish doesn't have this problem because it completely collapsed the neuter into the masculine. Latin saeculum/saecula retained the 'mixed' form in Italian ciglio/ciglia, but in Spanish became siglo/siglos - - completely regularized to the system of pluralizing seen in the masculine pattern of -o singular / -os plural. Call it 'irregular' or an 'exception,' or whatever you like, but these descriptors fall shy of explaining what actually happened.--Hraefen 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am Italian, and I can assure you that there is no "real" neuter gender in our language (as the last two users correctly pointed out): there are however many traces of Latin's neuter gender left here and there. For example there is a rough corrispective of English pronoun it in Italian, in the sense that indicater an object rather than a person, but has both feminine and masculine form (respectively essa and esso). It is interesting to note that in some areas (especially in Tuscany) of Italy people sometimes use a "correct" masculine form for these words (orecchio -> orecchi and so on) in spoken language. Also:
  • common plural form of orecchio is orecchie (a standard plural feminine)
  • membro means "member", like in and organization, and membra means "limbs"
  • an exception to the above rule, membro is used in literature meaning "penis" (really)
  • in familiar language ossi is sometimes used as a plural for osso, meaning scattered bones, like the leftovers from a meal, while ossa is more tied to the human skeleton as a whole
  • muri is probably the most widely used plural form of muro: mura is used only by people who speak more correctly overall, especially in reference to city walls, as opposed to house walls
  • present mura comes from the plural of murus, -i, Latin for house walls; city walls are moenia, -ium (a "pluralia tantum", that is, a word that only exists or has a different meaning in plural)
  • risa is the plural form of riso only in the meaning of "laugh, smile": when riso means "rice", the plural (though seldom used) is risi
  • today, fusa means the sound that a cat makes when he purrs (hope I got that correctly): we say "il gatto sta facendo le fusa"
  • fondamento never means the foundations of an house (rather, it means "proof, base" in abstract sense, for example in relation to a theory) while fondamenta always means house foundations
  • le fila is only ever used in the phrase "tirare le fila", meaning having control in a secretive manner; la fila instead means "queue", always relating to the meaning of thread (filo)
There are other things that demonstrate that many of these words are "irregular" in some way, as most of the Italian is (Italian verbs have lots of little variations like these). The basic concept is that in Italian you don't get much adherence to the rules as in other languages, even if there is plenty of them.

[edit] Introductory paragraph

I've removed the phrase saying that some degree of declension is kept in the personal pronouns: for that matter, in Romanian (and perhaps in some, older, forms of Romance), declensions are kept in much more than just personal pronouns. However, I don't think this deserves a mention in the introduction: we've got a whole article to play with. Also, if you don't like the way I've tempered the paragraph ("many of the differences", "among others"), feel free to reword, but some form of "tempering" should be left. Certainly, not all the differences are analytical (and not all Romance languages have all those differences, see Romanian), nor are the cited reasons the only ones for differentiation from Latin (namely, everyday and everylanguage phonetic changes are certainly part of the picture).

Other than this, is the phrase "many of the differences from the Romance languages in relation to Latin" grammatically correct?

LjL 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It is obviously a generization. But it is still important and informative.--Pedro 15:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, and as I said, I think it should be kept - except for adding clues to inform that it is a generalization, as I hope I've done effectively. LjL 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence under "16" section

Not sure what to make of this, but it was obviously out of place so I moved it to here. --Patik 03:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

In chinese,six means good luck,so 16 could bring us at least one good red luck of chance by meeting with our ideal woman.So,good luck,my friends,hope 16 could brings you some kind of romance which you have been dreamed of it.

I'd leave it where I think it belongs -- out of the Romance languages article :-) LjL 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It is cute, though. Put a smile on my face. :)--Theathenae 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I saw it but I didnt remove it. maybe it can be used in the article about the number 16... Maybe chinese is a Romance language after all. LOL. The guy probably thought "Romance" meant "love". -Pedro 13:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

IM A PERVERT!!!

[edit] Romance Languages Forum

I'm a college student in Florida who is fascinated by the Romance languages and Romance linguistics. I have so far studied and acquired a decent and somewhat articulatory knowledge of Spanish, French, Italian, and Latin.

This may not be the best place to do this, but I'm desperate for more members (I only have five so far). I've started a message board forum devoted to Romance languages/linguistics (hosted by SuddenLaunch). I'd like to invite anyone who's interested to check it out and join! There's a board for each major Romance language, a board for dialects, a board for discussing lingual history and linguistics, a homework help section, and a section for Romance conlangs. If you have significant interest in one or more of the Romance languages or in Romance linguistics in general, I hope you join and help make this forum into the Romance language resource/community I'm hoping it will be.

Thanks, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Vobis gratias do,

Gregorius

Do you have a link for me?
Oops! I suppose a link would help! : ) http://linguamania.suddenlaunch3

[edit] Evolution degrees

What's Evolution degree mean? That section seems completely random. Has French kept more or less from Latin? You can't tell from a number 44 per cent that just sits there randomly looking pretty! Could someone make it make sense, or will I just remove it? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The reference is just thrown in there, but it seems to be
Pei, M. A.. 1949. A New Methodology for Romance Classification.
That's what I found that matches the name and year. We still don't know how the number was calculated, but it's a start. Maybe if the one who pasted the numbers could explain... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers - 16

'In some languages the word for the number 16 is irregular after the fashion of English "sixteen".' This sentence had me somewhat confused. I'd regard "sixteen" as following a regular pattern, along with fourteen, seventeen, nineteen, and possibly fifteen and eighteen depending on how pedantic you want to be. Eleven and twelve are clearly irregular in English, but sixteen is not. I suppose the author means that it's irregular in the sense that it's not tenty-six? -86.136.27.156 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess so. Dieciséis "ten and six" is regular in line with veintiséis "twenty and six" and treinta y seis "thirty and six" (mostly pronounced quickly as if it were treintiséis) in Spanish, for example. Of course, there are languages where the numbers are all regularly formed, like Mandarin (and Chinese-borrowed Japanese). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think what the author was talking about was in regard to the fact that in some languages such as Spanish you have "dieciséis" and others such as French which have "seize."

[edit] Number of Romanian-speakers

Where does this number of 30 million for Romanian come from? Our own article Romanian language gives 26 million, which sounds more likely to me. Ethnologue gives about 23.5 million [2], but I believe that they count dual-native speakers only once, and Romanian has a lot of those (for example a million or so Romanian-Hungarian dual native speakers in Transylvania). Still, Romania has a population of just over 22 million, Moldova has less than 3.5 million. Yes, there are some Romanian speakers in Ukraine, and (if you want to stretch the definition of "Romanian language") maybe 400,000 speakers of other Eastern Romance languages in the Balkans, but conversely there are easily a million Slavs in Moldova, many of whom don't speak Romanian at anything like a native level.

I suppose that under Wikipedia's policies all of this is neither here nor there if someone has a good citation for this (Ethnologue is normally considered a pretty good citation, but I find its number implausibly low), but I don't see any citation in the article. I figure I'll give at least a couple of days for someone to answer before I edit, since I'm new to this article and I know how contentious numbers like this can be. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Eastern Romance and Western Romance division

User:24.83.202.184 added the Western/Eastern division of the Romance languages (based on the La Spezia-Rimini Line) into the article, but this seems to (?) ignore such groupings as Italo-Western, while Romanian is generally placed on its own branch of Romance, Eastern Romance. We need a survey of the current authorities here. See also La Spezia-Rimini Line and Romance plurals. Alexander 007 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a mother-language Italian speaker. I have studied some French, so I will not use it for comparison. However, I can certainly read Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan (Catalan especially is very similar to Italian); I once tried, however, to skim through Aristotles' Logic in Romanian, and it could have been Sindarin to me. Some international words can be recognised, but so would they even in Japanese for that sake (pun not intended). I am told Romanian maintained declension systems, discarded altoghether in Italian.
The problem with the La Spezia-Rimini Line is that it runs suspiciously close to the purported borders of Padania, which makes me suspect a political motive. Southern Italy was under the dominion of the Spaniards, not the Romanians, for a long time. There were no connections to Romania as far as I know (except maybe through the Byzantine Empire at some point in the middle ages, but their language was Greek anyway). If this line is for real, there is surely some peer-reviewed literature supporting it, since it's far from an obvious fact. Until that is reported, the most logical place for Italian is among Western Romance languages. --Orzetto 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The number 16

I added and changed a few things in that section, but I still have some problems with it:

  • Why is English "sixteen" irregular?
  • Why is it relevant here that Romanian is a member of the Balkan linguistic union?

Does anyone know a reference on this? — AdiJapan ☎ 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French in America

Added French for America, with estimated population speaking it. Dali 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sicilian dialect

Every Italian dialect, French dialect or other Romance language dialect is recognized by Ethnologue and has its own page: check Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian language (Romance), Neapolitan language, Venetian language, Corsican language, Picard language, Norman language and many many many others. So we can put all of these languages/dialects in the article, and clutter it irremediably, or remove the Sicilian languages, that doesn't deserve more than any other one. GhePeU 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, GhePeU, you do not cite any resources to support your claim that Sicilian, Corsican, Neapolitan, Ligurian, Lombard, and Venetian are not 'real' languages. There are more linguistic and historical reasons to categorize them as languages than I have the time to write. --VingenzoTM 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sardinian is mentioned (300,000 speakers), Occitan is mentioned (2m speakers), but Sicilian with 10m speakers can't be mentioned - mmm, POV city, here we come. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Occitan is a whole different language (langue d'oc) opposed to current French language (one of the langues d'oïl), Sardinian had a completely different evolution from Latin due to its peculiar substrates, just like Ladin and Friulian belongs to a different linguistic group. GhePeU 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • GhePeU - you wrote "Sardinian had a completely different evolution from Latin due to its peculiar substrates..." and what do you mean by that? Do you mean that it has a completely different evolution in comparison to French? Your reasoning is very unclear and on that premise, you argue that Sardinian can be called a language, because it has a completely different evolution than French? Please be more specific because your comments hold little substance, and are devoid of any cited, factual information. --VingenzoTM 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sicilian language

  • Your reasoning still makes zero sense - continuing to refer to Sicilian as a dialect is POV in the extreme on your part - you obviously don't know too much about the evolution of Sicilian, you have jumped to a conclusion without even looking into it thorougly, i.e. POV city, here we come! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • GhePeU, I ask you again to share with readers the scientific, linguistic information that points toward considering the above languages dialects. Your disdain for Sicilian and the other languages of Italy seems to come from a personal bias, in my own opinion. The lack of providing any credible sources or citations for your comments leads me to believe that your knowledge about the linguistic situation in Italy is coming out of thin air. You also seem to have a distaste for Ethnologue's linguistic classifications. But again, I beg you to provide your own resources, if in fact they even exist, in order to counter Ethnologue. Until that point, you have not even the slightest background information needed to defend your position on the matter. --VingenzoTM 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
How dare you change an edit of mine on this talk page! Just how POV you are is becoming clearer and clearer. One, you insist on using the term "dialect" when I have already said that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts Sicilian as a language. Two, once you strip away the term "dialect", what do you have left as part of your argument? Sicilian is the most widely spoken Romance langauge after Catalan. It therefore has every right to remain. It's up to others more knowledgable about other romance languages as to whether they get a guernsey. At least I have the guts to put my real name to these edits, and I am not just some anonymous rabble rouser. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia accepts all the Italian dialects as languages, check Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian language (Romance), Neapolitan language, Venetian language and Corsican language. So you put them all or you remove Sicilian. And by the way, 10,000,000 speakers is a numebr without justifications, Ethnologue (you always cite it) gives 4,832,520 speakers (this is the population of Sicily, including people that don't speak Sicilian), and if you want to double the number because you count third and fourth generation emigrants you must double the speakers of the other dialects too. And for example, recent polls indicate that 80% of Veneto population (about 3,600,000) speaks regularly in Venetian language, not to count the millions of emigrants from Veneto and Friuli that settled in Brazil and Argentina. GhePeU 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • GhePeu, maybe you should follow the suit of Pippu and begin to cite your own resources. The Wikipedia project is an enciclopedic work, and should be treated with the same respect as other published documents. This means you must cite your information and be able to support what is written using factual data. Unfortunately, you are providing nothing of the sort in your quest to defame certain languages. --VingenzoTM 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)VingenzoTM 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately perverse? The ethnologue entry merely gives the population of Sicily - it is not meant as an estimate of the speakers of the language. Throw in the speakers from southern Calabria, Salentino and the millions of Sicilian immigrants to the USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia and the EC amd Northern Italy in recent decades and there is your answer. Lastly, is your chief concern that Venetian is not getting a guernsey? You don't like seeing the more unworthy southern language showing up ahead of something from Northern Italy - is that the chief concern? And you describe me as being POV? I'll let whoever have a crack, but I will return, as long as the Wikipedia Foundation accepts Sicilian as a language, then I am entitled to make reference to it in a general article on the Romance languages, especially when it is the 7th most common, and has many features which set it apart from Italian, certainly worth highlighting in an article such this I would have thought. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I made an example with Venetian because I know directly its status, but what I wrote is not valid just for Venetian (and note that I'm not the one trying to slip in "its dialect" here). I'm trying to tell that every single language now considered a "dialect of Italy" has the same right to be in a prominence position. You keep repeting that "Wikimedia recognize Sicilian as a language", that "Sicilian has more speakers than what officially recognized", that "it is different from Italian". Well, this is true for every Italian languages/dialect, and while you gave reason for putting Sicilian there, you did not give a single reason for putting ONLY Sicilian there. So again, either you explicitly cite Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Ligurian language (Romance), Venetian language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Central Italian, Neapolitan language and Corsican language or you don't put any of them. GhePeU 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • GhePeu, I do not understand why you continue to write such nonsense, such as "every single language, now considered a 'dialect of Italy', has the same right to be in a prominent position" ... or "well, this is true for every Italian language/dialect" ... Before we can properly educate you about linguistics in Italy, we need to successfully explain the history of Italy first, in hopes that you will better understand the dynamics at play. Here is something you choose to dispute... Neapolitan, Lombard, Sicilian, Venetian, Sardinian, etc. are languages (not dialects). They did not descend from the Italian language, nor are they corrupted forms of Italian. They descended from Latin similarly to Catalan, Rumanch, Galician, etc. In the modern world, most people think of Italy as a country that has "always been there." But please remember that Italy was NOT a country until 1860. Before this, existed the Kingdom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, etc. In these individual kingdoms included their own languages, cultures, customs, histories, and in some cases, banks, currencies, armies and navies. One needs to keep in mind that nearly three thousand years of documented history existed in this area of the Mediterranean basin before the Italian state was born in 1860!

For the above mentioned reasons, the linguistic situation in present day, modern Italy is a very complex issue. There were pre-Romance languages that existed before the Roman Empire spread its Latin language. Later, Latin broke down into different variations across different regions. Complicating this factor is that in the north, non Romance languages like Germanic, Slavic, and Gallic advanced. In the south, Spanish, French, and non Romance languages like Albanian and Greek added their characteristics, and in some cases replacing the Latin variations. Finally, in the islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica), there was Spanish, French, Greek, Arabic, and Turkish influence amongst others of less dominance.

How can all of these languages, variations, and dialects be organized, if they can even be organized at all? One highly respected reference is Ethnologue. One of the most respected sources of linguistic classification in Italy is Giovan Battista Pellegrini and his "Carta dei dialetti d'Italia", 1977, based on the work of "Sprach-und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz", 1928-1940. Click on the above link to see the map of how the languages are organized. Not surprisingly, the map closely follows the historical development of pre-Italy. The Kingdom of Sicily, including the peninsular portions of Calabria, and Puglia (Salento), compose the "Extreme Southern Language Group" referred to as Sicilian language. The Kingdom of Naples, including the capital of Naples, surrounding Campania, northern Calabria, northern Puglia, all of Basilicata, Molise, Abruzzo, southern Marche, and southeastern Lazio, compose the "Intermediate Southern Language Group" referred to as Neapolitan language. The former Papal States, including Rome, Lazio, Umbria, and central Marche, make up the "Southern Language Group" referred to as Romanesco. The list goes on.

While there may be wide differences among the dialects in this various language groupings, this can be expected. Given the diverse cultures and histories that abound, there will always be great linguistic diversity in Italy, but the above sources adequately organize these groups. Some characteristics are more subtle than others, but cacuminal dd is a trademark of the Sicilian group, while the schwa sound makes famous Neapolitan. And based upon some of these examples, there is no reason to carve out or create subdialects or dialects from variations of languages. Ethnologue, and the above map should clearly be used as a guide for linguistic organization and classification in Italy. If for no other reason, these references should be used by Wikepedia to create and ensure some sort of uniformity and standardization when dealing with the complex linguistic situation in Italy today. You on the other hand offer nothing other than your own personal and biased opinions! --VingenzoTM 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept your most recent edit for the time being. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Sicilian related to Italian?

I've found some similarities between Sicilian and Italian:

  • They both have assimilations; for example, from Latin ct to tt. it-perfetto, scn-pirfettu
  • They both have geminations.
  • They both have vowels at the end of the suffixes corresponding to following in English: -ion, -al, -ar, -or, and -ile,(all I can think of) unlike some other Romance languages:
  • english - spanish - portuguese - french - italian - sicilian
  • discussion - discusión - discussão - discussion - discussione - discussioni
  • plural - plural - plural - pluriel - plurale - plurali
  • solar - solar - solar - solaire - solare - sulari
  • color - color - cor - couleur - colore - culuri
  • facile - fácil - fácil - facile (final e is silent) - facile - facili
  • verb infintive endings: - ar, er, ir - ar, er/or, ir - er, ir, re - are, ere, ire - ari, iri
  • The plural markers of both languages are similar. They all derive from Latin nominative plurals. Latin declension

So, are Sicilian and Italian genetically closely related? Or are they merely a Sprachbund? 70.20.142.70 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You will find your answer in Sicilian language. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up at the article Sicilian language and saw that the similarities between the two languages were because of the Italianism in the 18C. So Sicilian isn't related to Italian after all, right? 70.20.142.70 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly related because they are part of the same language group (and closely related at that). But if you mean that Sicilian did not descend from Italian, that is correct. They have similar but separate histories. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The word for Brit. Eng. "colour" in Portuguese is "cor", not "color". In fact, Portuguese frequently drops inter-vocalic "l" (e.g. "céu", "dor", "cor", "moinho", etc... vs Sp "cielo", "color", "dolor", "molino", etc... or French "ciel", "couleur", "douleur", "moulin", etc...), I've edited your the table above to correct that. Mbruno 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head section shall mention no language

I am trying to rewrite the head section so as to remove the bone of contention and hopefully make it nicer to all readers. Please wait for another hour or two. My last "Save Page" may have deleted a few edits that were made in the last hour or so; I will try toput them back after the head section is OK. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but this isn't about being nice - it's about the correctness or otherwise of making reference to a romance language in an article about romance languages. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that if we list N languages in the head section, for any N, there will always be a reader who feels that their language has been discriminated against, and will then edit the page to add it to the list. Then twenty other readers will fight about which language should come first, Bazoonian which has more poets or Foobarian which has more singers, or whether Pinocchian is really a language or just a minor dialect of Cucagnish. And so on.
Hence my salomonic proposal that the head section shall not mention any specific language. Instead we put the complete language list in the body of the article, with number of speakers and all. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi GhePeU, I think you are still missing the point. You are still referring to the Sicilian as a dialect. Do you know the frustation that you are creating to all the people that speaks sicilian in their everyday life and for the ones that will still use. I am sorry but i found it discriminatory from your side...ninu

[edit] Dialects of Italy vs Dialects of Italian

The link "Dialects of Italy" actually takes one to Dialects of Italian - these are two very different concepts! I quote from thea article:

Dialects of Italian are regional varieties which are closely related to Standard Italian, while the terms Dialects of Italy is suggested for those idioms, such as Piedmontese, Lombard, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian, Venetian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, who show considerable differences in grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Many "dialects of Italy" should thus be considered distinct languages in their own right, and actually are assigned to separate branches on the Romance language family tree by Ethnologue and other academic works. However, for historical, cultural and political reasons, these idioms have not yet been given an official status, nor have they developed a unified written standard.

Following on from the above quote, a better expression would be "languages of Italy". ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

It has been proposed that Languages of Oïl be renamed and moved to Langues d'Oïl. Comments and votes on Talk:Languages of Oïl, please, if you're interested. Man vyi 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects and Languages of Italy

I think that none of the wikipedian can decide by himself which language is a "real language" or just a dialect. The criteria most communly used is to verify the existence of the ISO 639-2 code: languages normally have it, dialects not. About the languaes spoken in the Italian territory, the following ones (listed in a strictly alphabetical order) have an ISO 639-2 code:

  • Italian (ita)
  • Friulian (fur)
  • Ladino (lad)
  • Neapolitan (nap)
  • Sardinian (srd)
  • Sicilian (scn)

You can check it:

Thanks for your attention. --Giusi 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This test is true only in one direction, though: if there is an ISO code it means that someone managed to convice some international committee that the language was a real language. But if there is no code, it does not follow that it is a dialect. Perhaps the speakers of that language didn't have the resources to lobby the committe, perhaps they didn't bother, or they missed the train to the meeting. Or perhaps the committee decided that it was not worth the trouble because there were too few speakers left. Jorge Stolfi 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. Anyway, this discussion about language/dialect is pointless, the topic has been discussed billions of times, and has been resolved within Wikipedia. Venetian, Sicilian, etc. are languages, not "dialcts". "Dialects of Italian" do exist, like "dialects of Venetian", but are something else. Jorge Stolfi 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Jorge, I am totally agree with you. I posted my message because someone thought that Venetian, Sicilian, etc. are not languages and for this reason he canceled parts of the article. --Giusi 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

• Folks, instead of fighting here, why don't we work on the article? At the very least we need a listing of all the Romance languages, including Italian, Venetian, Sicilian, etc (but not their dialects -- those should go in the respective pages), with the numbers of native speakers.

BTW, note that while the children of immigrants usually speak the language of their parents, the grandchildren as a rule won't even understand it. So you can count only a small fraction of those millions of Italian immigrants who left 100 years ago. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leftover text etc.

I've just finished copyediting the first part of the article, mainly inserting IPA tags and deleting excessive wikilinks. I guess I haven't paid attention to this page for a while, since the last part has somehow turned into a huge mess, including a section called "leftover text". The responsible person(s) should try to amend that, soon. The lists of languages would be better unified and/or placed elsewhere IMHO. On the issue of dialects and languages, may I suggest that the two terms are more often than not just politically motivated labels, and should not be cause for an argument? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on every point. Thanks for tidying it up. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have finally cleaned up (mostly) the leftover text, and made another pass through the article. That surely added many errors, so please check and fix as you see fit. We still need to do something to improve the language lists. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language lists

I have moved the classification trees (including the Ethnologue) to a spearate article, classification of Romance languages, and combined the geographical and alphabetical lists into one.

I propose that we avoid getting into classification disputes here, e.g. whether Galician is a Spanish or Portuguese dialect etc. However, it may be useful to combine some entries into groups, besides the dialect/parent groups that are already there. For example, we could group together any set of languages that, although not "dialects" of any other language, (a) have coevolved in neighboring areas with substantial contact, and (b) form a language continum that is more or less well-distinguished from other languages outside the group, and (c) include at most one official language. Thus perhaps most of the languages of France can be re-sorted as two groups (Oc and Oïl), and most languages of Italy into half a dozen groups (Venetian, Ligurese, Sicilian, etc.); whereas Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan would remain separate groups, and Galician may be put in yet another separate group with the other secondary languages of NW Spain. What do you think? Jorge Stolfi 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is ter = "to hold" in Portuguese?

[edit] Is tem = "there is" in Portuguese?

[edit] portuguese

I've deleted the following:

European Portuguese has historically been losing the initial unstressed vowels and thus reducing syllables to consonant clusters, e.g. dirijo [di'riʒu] → ['driʒu].

The first i in this word is not silent in European Portuguese.

[edit] Romanesco (Italian Meridiano) Language Group

Hello friends, I have a question reguarding the Romanesco (Italian Meridiano) language group in central Italy. For reasons you see on the Romanesco page, I'm not sure how to treat its classification.

[edit] Romanesco refers to:
  • the language group of central Italy, and
  • the particular dialect of Rome and the immediate surrounding area

[edit] Different influences:
  • the language group stems from different varieties of Vulgar Latin with pre-Romance substrata
  • the particular dialect of Rome was influenced much by Tuscan in the late 1600s
  • this makes Roman dialect much closer to Italian than the other Romanesco dialects outside the city
  • Romanesco dialects outside the city are more authentic, based on Vulgar Latin of the area

[edit] Modern History, Diffusion, Romanaccio
  • the Tuscanised Roman dialect was confined to Rome and its immediate surrounding area until the 1800s
  • it spread considerably outside the city and province during the 1900s
  • between the 1920s and 1960s many settlers came from other Italian regions
  • this ultimately changed the Roman dialect
  • it was contaminated by other regional languages and dialects of Italy
  • this vulgarisation of the Roman dialect led to the negative term "Romanaccio"
  • during the 1950s the newly evolved Roman/Romanaccio dialect spread outside the city
  • Roman/Romanaccio contaminated the traditional Romanseco (non Tuscanised) dialects in central Italy
  • Roman/Romanaccio was later ghettoised and anyone who spoke it or Romanesco was stereotyped as ignorant, vulgar, lazy

[edit] Death of Roman dialect
  • it is possible that the Roman dialect died between 1970 and 1980
  • caused by social changes in the last few neighborhoods where pure Roman was spoken
  • neighborhoods in the city center, Trastevere, San Lorenzo, and Testaccio were transformed to places of commerce
  • it is the parent of Romanaccio

[edit] How to classify the language group, dialects?
  • Romanesco = Italian meridiano language group, southcentral Italy
    • Non-Traditional Dialects:
      • Classical Roman - Roman vulg. Lat. influenced by Tuscan in the late 1600s (extinct 1980)
        • Romanaccio - Class. Roman, influenced by other dialects/regional languages (evolved 1920-1960)
    • Traditional Dialects:
      • Laziale Centro-Settentrionale
      • Umbro Settentrionale
      • Umbro Meridionale-Occidentale e Viterbese
      • Umbro Meridionale-Orientale
      • Marchigiano Centrale Anconitano
      • Marchigiano Centrale Maceratese
      • Cicolano-Reatino-Aquilano

Since I'm translating these things in English, I'm unsure how to proceed. I've broken down some of the components above and I think it would be the most appropriate classification. However, I'm very cautious in saying that dialetto Romano, Romanaccio, or Romanesco is a language. By today's standards, Romanaccio is not much of a language of its own. The pure Roman dialect made popular by Belli in the 1950s has long died away. I'd feel more comfortable calling Romanesco a dialect, but in the same sense, the same word is used to identify the entire language group. And as noted above, the Romanesco dialects in Lazio (outside center city Rome), Marche, and Umbria are in fact the original Romanesco dialects evolved from Vulgar Latin of the area. It was only the dialect of Rome, "Romano", also called "Romanesco" that was influenced by Tuscan and to which it became very similiar. Therefore, I want to avoid and eliminate the ambiguity in translating the language names from Italian to English. As you see, even in Italian, the language names have different meanings to different people, in different places, and are treated dissimilarly between linguists and the citizens themselves.

The problem is "language versus dialect" and the ambiguity of the word "Romanesco". I think I am doing right by this, but I'd like other persons' feedback and suggestions. With the exception of the idiom spoken in metropolitan Rome, the rest of central Italy speaks one of many Romanesco dialects. It is a language group in its own right, see map. And like Catalan, Galician, Neapolitan, Corsican, and all the other regional languages, it deserves to be recognized. I'm not advocating it's political recognition, but instead I'm advocating its recognition through this encyclopedia, since it's already linguistically recognized as the "Meridiano" language group in Italy. I will soon provide examples of the various literatures written in the different varieties of Romanesco. But please post your thoughts, suggestions, and ideas, so that I can make the English version of this article informative, concise, and least complicated as possible. --Massimino 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the differences between so-called "classical" Romano and Romanaccio are negligible when compared to the overall Tuscan influences on Romano (dating from the 16th century at least). The rural Laziale dialects are more conservative, e.g. they preserved many features of their Oscan substratum. Robotchoir 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The origin of Romance

Initially the "Roman language" would only refer to Langue d'oïl, but it was eventually generalized by scholars to describe all languages derived from Latin.

Gonzalo de Berceo (ca. 1190–1264) spoke about román paladino. --Error 01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map excludes Cajun and Acadian French. I realise this is probably carried over from the original French map, but they probably should be included, since significant numbers of native speakers still speak these in the relevant areas. —Firespeaker 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are these areas, and what is their extent? I could add them to the map if I knew where they were. Qyd(talk)23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Cajun French is fairly easy (see the article for which Parishes it's spoken in). Acadian French is a bit trickier—I suppose most of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, northern Maine, and Eastern Quebec count, but different areas have different speaker population densities. —Firespeaker 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded this map. South-central Louisiana, Maine and western canada colored in light blue. I recently found out that many canadian provinces don't legally define the official languages, and as such the federal concept of english+french as official languages prevails. This map has Ontario designated as having french as official language (I beleive this is an error, as Quebec and New Brunswick are the only canadian provinces where french has official language status. Tell me what you think about the uploaded map, and if everyone agrees, I can replace the old one with this. Qyd(talk)15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not being sure about the significance of the difference between light and dark blue, I can't tell you what I think. I also might not be the expert to ask anyway, since most of my knowledge about these dialects of French is annecdotal, though a certain amount is first-hand. —Firespeaker 11:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
French is an official language of Louisiana; if dark blue represents official status, it should be dark. The Jade Knight 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Ontario should not be blue at all. French is the only official language of Quebec, so it is OK that Quebec is dark blue. New Brunswick is the only bilingual province, so New Brunswick could be light blue. French is along with English technically the official languages of the territories of Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon, but not many people there speak French. Cato
French is NOT an official language of Louisiana; it has no official language. The same is true of New Mexico, so it should not be dark green. Honestly, the entire American southwest could be light blue, as Spanish is commonly spoken throughout. 66.126.191.98 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The map should indicate the signifigant French-speaking minority in northern Maine. There are around 80,000 Francophones in that region. And Ontario should absolutely be blue, at least part of it. There are half a million French speakers who live there.CharlesMartel 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

[edit] Vocabulary Table

I suggest we include a vocabulary table comparing the different Romance languages, similar to the one found in the Germanic languages article.Mbruno 02:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Great idea! I thought I would make a start here (copying that one directly) and we could fill in the bit we can until it is ready to transfer across. Other words that highlight interesting differences (or similiraties) can easily be added if need be. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

for the sake of space, show only the singular masculine for all adjectives; English infinitive shown without preposition. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
English Catalan French Italian Jèrriais Occitan Portuguese Provençal Romanian Romansch Sardinian Sicilian Spanish
Apple Pomme Mela Poumme Maça Măr Pumu Manzana
Arm Bras Braccio Bras Braço Braţ Vrazzu Brazo
Arrow Flèche Freccia Èrchelle Seta Săgeată Fileccia Flecha
Bed Lit Letto Liet Cama/Leito Pat (from Greek) Lettu Cama/Lecho
Black Noir Nero Nièr Preto Negru Niuru Negro
Board Planche Asse Plianche Tábua Tablă Taula/Pernu Tabla
Book Livre Libro Livre Livro Carte Libbru Libro
Breast Poitrine Petto Estonma Peito Piept Pettu Pecho
Brown Brun Bruno Brun Moreno Maro(n)/Brun Brunu Moreno
Cat Chat Gatto Cat Gato Pisică (onomatopoeic) Jattu Gato
Chair Chaise Sedia Tchaîse Cadeira Scaun Seggia Silla
Cold Froid Freddo Fraid Frio Frig Friddu Frío
Cow Vache Mucca Vaque Vaca Vacă Vacca Vaca
Day Jour Giorno Jour Dia Zi Jornu Dia
Dead Mort Morte Mort Morto Mort Mortu Muerto
Die Mourir Morire Mouothi Morrer (A) Muri Muriri Morir
Enough Assez Abbastanza Assez Bastante Destul Abbastanza Bastante
Family Famille Famiglia Famil'ye Família Familie Famigghia Familia
Finger Doigt Dito Dé Dedo Deget Jitu Dedo
Flower Fleur Fiore Flieur Flor Floare Ciuri Flor
Give Donner Dare Donner / Bailli Dar (A) Da Dari Dar
Go Aller Andare Aller Ir (A) Merge Jiri Ir
Gold Or Oro Or Ouro Aur Oru Oro
Hand Main Mano Main Mao Mână Manu Mano
High Haut Alto Haut Alto Înalt Autu Alto
House Maison Casa Maîson Casa Casă Casa Casa
Ink Encre Inchiostro Encre Tinta Cerneală (from Slavic) Inga Tinta
January Janvier Gennaio Janvyi Janeiro Ianuarie Jinnaru Enero
Juice Jus Succo Jus Suco Suc Sucu Jugo
Key Clé Chiave Clié Chave Cheie Chiavi Llave
Man Homme Uomo Houmme Homem Om Omu Hombre
Moon Lune Luna Leune Lua Lună Luna Luna
Night Nuit Notte Niet Noite Noapte Notti Noche
Old Vieux Vecchio Vyi Velho Vechi (objects, temporal)/Bătrân (people - from Lat. veteranus) Vecchiu Viejo
One Un Uno Ieune Um Unu Unu Uno
Pear Poire Pera Paithe Pêra Pară Piru Pera
Play Jouer Giocare Jouer Jogar (A se) Juca Jucari Jugar
Ring Anneau Annello Anné / Bague Anel Inel Anneddu Anillo
River Fleuve Fiume Riviéthe Rio Râu Ciumi Rio
Sew Coudre Cucire Couôtre (A) Coase Cùsiri Coser
Snow Neige Neve Né Neve Nea (from Latin)/Zăpadă (from Slavic) Nivi Nieve
Take Prendre Prendere Prendre (A) Lua (from Lat. levare) Pigghiari Tomar
That Quel Quello Chu Aquele Acel/Acela Chiddu Ese/Aquello
The le/la il/la lé/la o/a -ul/-a lu/la (u/a) el/la
Throw Jeter Gettare Pitchi (A) Arunca (from Lat. eruncare) Jittari Lanzar
Thursday Jeudi Giovedì Jeudi Joi Jovidìa Jeuves
Tree Arbre Albero Bouais Árvore Arbore/Copac (from substratum) Àrvuru Árbol
Two Deux Due Deux Dois Doi Dui Dos
Urn Urne Urna Urna Urnă Urna Urna
Voice Voix Voce Vouaix Voz Voce Vuci Voz
Where Où Dove Ioù/ Où'est Onde Unde Unni Donde
White Blanc Bianco Blianc Branco Alb (From Lat. albus) Vrancu/jancu Blanco
Who Qui Chi Tchi Quem Cine Cu Quien
World Monde Mondo Monde Mundo Lume (from Lat. lumen) Munnu Mundo
Yellow Jaune Giallo Jaune Amarelo Galben Giarnu Amarillo


This has gone out of alignment - please wait while I fix it up! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Man vyi 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Are we almost ready to plonk in the main article? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Which meaning of That is intended? Man vyi 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Adjectival. But if it's too ambiguous, it could be better to leave out. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok - I think it's time to finally include this table in the main article - additional languages can be added at any time - but for the moment I will delete those to which nothing is shown. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian in the map

I have no idea why Italian has the distribution it has on the map. First, in Lybia Italian may be the language of the former colonial power but is no longer spoken, taught, or understood. English is the second language of Lybia. Similarly I strongly doubt there is any presence of Italian in Somalia or Ethiopia at the present time. The light green for the southern US and Philipines looks confusingly like the colour for Italian.

[edit] Atlantic Islands

The Atlantic Islands where Portuguese (Azores and Madeira) and Castillian (Canary islands) are spoken are not represented on the map. This should be corrected. The Ogre 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanic

Shouldn´t it be Romanic languages ????

I agree, or Latin languages or Latinate or Latinic or whatever. This has peeved me for some time as well. But, we can't change convention. At least not here.
It has always been Romance languages. I never heard of Romanic languages. --Chris S. 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are a few linguists, believers in taxonomic neatness I guess, who like to call them "Romanic languages". As yet, the great majority takes no notice. So, no reason to change here, I would say. Andrew Dalby 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Romance" is a term used in this context for centuries. 213.13.86.69 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'Category:Romance peoples' includes the article Latin peoples (to which Romance peoples redirects) that states: "those European linguistic-cultural groups and their descendants all over the world that speak Romance languages. The Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin." There is no distinction on Wikipedia between Romance languages and Romanic languages (the latter redirects to the first). I do wonder however, whether the term 'Romance languages' might reflect a rather romantic (see Romanticism) view [thus indeed centuries old] on the (in particular French) romance genre of writing and reputedly romantic style of speech about romance (see romantic love), versus 'Romanic languages' as a more technically oriented term [and therefore more appropriate at present]; in which case we should follow the example by the 'Romance peoples': redirect [by a simple move] 'Romance languages' towards 'Romanic languages'. — SomeHuman 2 Dec 2006 18:54-19:12 (UTC)
As stated, "Romance" is the standard term in linguistics. This has got nothing to do with romanticism, which is a much more recent term than 'Romance' in the sense of "popular Latin". See also the disambiguation page Romance. FilipeS 19:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, originally 'Romance' meant Roman-like, from Roman. Its connotations about love, as in 'a romance', had to be more recent. But those are most prevalent in daily English and relatively few non-linguistically trained people without knowledge of foreign literature will immediately think of the etymological origin. One should verify whether 'Romanic languages' has sufficient usage in present-time, recently created scientific, encyclopaedic, works; if so that would then be 'our' preference. — SomeHuman 2 Dec 2006 19:26 (UTC)

[edit] past imperfect?

past imperfect DĪCEBAT "he was saying". is this past imperfect(?) or past continuous ?

There was no dictinction between imperfect and continuous in Latin. FilipeS 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute verbal forms

Italian retains some absolute verbal forms as participio assoluto e gerundio assoluto in both two tenses --Philx 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers, consistancy

Quote:

The number 16

Romanian constructs the names of the numbers 11–19 by a regular pattern which could be translated as "one-over-ten", "two-over-ten", etc.. All the other Romance languages use a pattern like "one-ten", "two-ten", etc. for 11–15, and the pattern "ten-and-seven, "ten-and-eight", "ten-and-nine" for 17–19. For 16, however, they split into two groups: some use "six-ten", some use "ten-and-six":

At what point is onze, douze, treize, quatorze, quinze considered consistant with all the other Romance languages (minus Romanian, as mentioned)? It's the same pattern as seize. The same can be said for Spanish, once, doce, trece, quatorce, quince. Also, Italian is not as easy as the Spanish "diez y seis" (pardon lack of accents). There are changes to the numbers to allow better flow; examples:

4 --> 14
quattro --> quattordici

5 --> 15
cinque --> quindici

To say that Italian, French, and Spanish all follow the same pattern of "one-ten" is absolutely absurd and not true at all. (How has no one picked up on this?)

Additionally, the French language has a characteristic of the word "and" (et) being inserted only before "one" (un) So there is a difference between vingt et un and vingt-deux. (Although it's not used in 81). French also uses an insane way to count, (this I'll never understand) but there's soixante for 60, soixante-dix for 70. 80 is quatre-vingt and 90 is quatre-vingt-dix. No other language to my knowledge (though I could def. be wrong) counts like that. Four times twenty plus ten? I think that is definitely noteworthy. It definitely causes trouble for beginners, unlike Spanish and Italian. (So sorry I don't know much at all about Portugese or other Romance languages)

Italian is also different in that it is more "4 and 10" vs the Spanish "10 and 4." (If you like to be technical!)

The Spanish word is "dieciséis", not "diez y seis". Spanish 4 (cuatro) --> 14 (catorce), 5 (cinco) --> 15 (quince) are simplified forms of quattuordecim (quattuor + decem) and quindecim (quinque + decem), respectively. FilipeS

Yes, I know about my Spanish, I was separating it to show the roots. As far as it being a simplified form, well that's all fine and dandy, but what the article says doesn't represent that at all. It makes it sound like I should be able to count like the Chinese do, very predictably. Retailmonica

You wrote above "[...] onze, douze, treize, quatorze, quinze [...] It's the same pattern as seize.". Could you explain better what you meant by that?
As for "To say that Italian, French, and Spanish all follow the same pattern of "one-ten" is absolutely absurd and not true at all." I still disagree. The basic pattern is the same, give or take some minor phonetic transformations. Particularly when compared to the "one-over-ten" pattern of Romanian, or to the "six-ten" pattern of French. FilipeS 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When you count in French, after 10, it's not like "ten plus one." After the number 16, you have this pattern, yes. Dix-sept, dix-huit, dix-neuf. But where do you find "dix-un" ? You don't. How can you say that "seize" is some strange number, but "onze", "douze", "treize", "quatorze", and "quinze" aren't? Futhermore, a little change in phonetiques? "cinq" and "quinze" don't sound much like each other. Retailmonica

Pronunciation changes with time (that's how new languages are born). You have to go back to the Latin source, to recognize the pattern. FilipeS

---

Here is what is going on through the numbers 11-19. I'm assuming above that "quindecim" is the Latin form (Vulgar or otherwise) of the number 15. The Romance languages over time as I understand have all dropped intervocalic consonants along the way to differing degrees, and it appears final consonants as well (which in my non-professional opinion led to the decline in cases). So with that, drop the final 'm' common through at least Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. So now we have "quindeci." Italian then has some kind of vowel change that leaves us with "quindici." Now for the other three, drop the "de" so that we get "quinci." Now for French, the ending becomes "ze" and the word is "quinze." For Spanish and Portuguese, from "quinci" the last "i" beccomes an "e." So the words in both languages in "quince." All Romance languages (I guess except Romanian) have this pattern for 11-15. It just so happens that Italian (and perhaps whatever subset of Romance languages it belongs to) did not drop this 'de' the way that Spanish, Portuguese, French, and their sibling languages did. Now for the numbers 17-19, in all languages they follow some kind of 10+X pattern. In Spanish, we have "diecisiete," in Portuguese "dezessete," French "dix-sept," and Italian "diciassette." The problem is that in some languages, 16 is derived directly from Latin as 11-15 are, and in others it follows the 10+x pattern. I hope that clarifies things. NB: In some dialects/regions, there are words for 70, 80, and 90 which I reserve the right to use. They are septante, huitante (more common) or octante (less common), and nonante.

Right, except for one thing: the Portuguese word for 15 is quinze like in French, not quince like in Spanish. Well, two things: Portuguese dezesseis is a modern innovation. The older form is dezasseis. FilipeS 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocab Table revisited

I am finding the additional notes to the vocab table a bit of a distraction - they are of interest, but they impact on the compactness of the table itself - any ideas on how to fix? footnotes perhaps? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just footnoted it up. What do people think? Man vyi 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks much cleaner - thanks! I'm thinking it might even be useful spreading over two columns so the page doesn't run as long - I'm happy to try if someone else doesn't get to it first. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A footnote to the column for Portuguese has the following "U: only in ulo/ula". Well, I had never seen the words ulo/ula before in my life! On the other hand, I do know that u was quite common in Medieval Portuguese. FilipeS

[edit] Linguistic Features Inherited from...

Indo-European

The article says:
"As members of the Indo-European (IE) family, Romance languages have a number of features that are shared by other IE subfamilies ...These features include:...Verbs are not inflected according to the gender of the subject (unlike Arabic and Hebrew, for example)..."
This is not true at all. While it is true that verbs in Romance languages don't inflect for gender, they do in Hindi, and I imagine many of its sibling languages. Hindi is an Indic/Aryan language that is a sister group to the Persian/Iranian languages, which belong to the Indo-Iranian language family which is a family of Indo-European. I don't know whether this feature derived from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or from somewhere else over time, but the above statement is misleading.

Vulgar Latin

The article says:
"In this regard, the distance between any modern Romance language and Latin is comparable to that between Modern English and Old English. While speakers of French, Spanish or Italian, for example, can quickly learn to see through the spelling changes and thus recognize many Latin words, they will often fail to understand the meaning of Latin sentences."
Again, I find this untrue. Old English was purely a Germanic language, and Modern English is still Germanic with a huge influx of French and Latin words and spelling rules. Because of this, modern Romance languages have much more in common with Latin than modern English with Old English. Furthermore, being a native speaker, I can't recognize words from Old English based off spelling.

— Odinlast99 23 Aug 2006 10:48 (UTC)
was neither  signed nor dated

All European languages have had a "huge influx of French and Latin words". The uniqueness of English in this regard is often overstated. As for spelling, linguistically that doesn't prove anything, does it? FilipeS
I think you might be right, for my opinion those info might be corrected --Philx 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Odinlast99 states "...the Indo-Iranian language family which is a family of Indo-European". If 'family' means 'having a common ancestor', his quote from the article remains correct; if it means 'is a branch of Indo-European', his remark is most valid.
The most common Germanic languages are some Scandinavian ones with very little Latin influence; German with a small influence, Dutch with more though still limited Latin influences, and English of which I read that 3/4 of its vocabulary is of Latin instead of Old English (or other Germanic) influence – that (even if it were an exaggeration) is quite unique. I don't see Odinlast99 trying to prove anything linguistically by spellings, I assume he simply refers to transposing characters or taking spelling rules into account so as to facilitate recognizing a lexeme and/or the morphological nature of its derivate. — SomeHuman 2 Dec 2006 21:03-21:20 (UTC)

[edit] Please add these extinct Romance languages

According to the 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica article on romance languages that I read, the northern limit of where Romance languages are spoken was in present-day southern Germany. From the 5th to the late 9th centuries A.D, a Celto-Roman cultural presence along with a language known as "Allemannic" thrived in Bavaria, Swabia, Franconia and Baden-Wurttemberg before the advent of Germanization by 1000 A.D. Some surviving documents and manuscripts of an extinct Romance language are on exhibit in regional museums across southern Germany. I think the information is worth while adding to the wikipedia article, though I should examine the research on the up-to-date encyclopedia britannica web page if I'm able to now. +207.200.116.72 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dual in Romance?

They have lost the dual number, retaining only singular and plural, except for the equivalent to the English word "both": "ambos" in Portuguese and Spanish, "ambdós" in Catalan and "ambii" in Romanian.

What exactly makes ambos a dual? It just means "both", and I've never seen anyone claim that English "both" is a dual! FilipeS

[edit] To have and to hold

The following was needlessly obscure:

The verbs derived from Latin HABĒRE, TENĒRE, and ESSE are used differently for the concepts of "to have" (something), "to have" (auxiliary verb for complex tenses), and "there is" (existence statements). If we use T for TENĒRE, H for HABĒRE, and E for ESSE, the various languages classify as follows:
TTH: Portuguese, Galician.
THH: Spanish, Catalan.
HHH: Occitan, French.
HHE: Romanian, Italian
For example:
English: I have, I have done, there is
Portuguese: (eu) tenho, (eu) tenho feito, há (TTH)
Spanish: (yo) tengo, (yo) he hecho, hay (THH)
Catalan: (jo) tinc, (jo) he fet, hi ha (THH)
French: j'ai, j'ai fait, il y a (HHH)
Italian: (io) ho, (io) ho fatto, c'è (HHE)
Romanian: (eu) am, (eu) am făcut, este (or e) (HHE)
Friulian: (jo) o ai, (jo) o ai fat, a 'nd è, al è
Most of these languages also use the TENĒRE verb for the sense of "to hold", e.g. Italian tieni il libro, French tu tiens le livre, Catalan tens el llibre, Spanish tienes el libro, Romanian ţine cartea, Galician Tes o libro, Friulian Tu tu tegnis il libri ("you hold the book"). However, Portuguese normally uses a different verb for that sense, usually segurar (from the Vulgar Latin ASSECURARE, "to make secure"). On the other hand, Brazilian Portuguese informally uses the T verb in the existential sense, e.g. tem água no copo instead of há água no copo ("there is water in the glass"). Also, archaic Galician-Portuguese used H in permanent states eu hei um nome (I have a name, i.e. for all my life) and T in non-permanent ones eu tenho um livro (I have a book, i.e. perhaps tomorrow have not).

I suppose someone rewrote it this way because, if a modern speaker of Portuguese wants to translate "to hold", he will use segurar most of the time, rather than ter. Nevertheless, ter can mean "to hold" sometimes. An example is "Tenho um livro nas mãos", which I would not hesitate in translating as "I'm holding a book in my hands". Also, if we're going to have these scruples about words whose most common meaning has changed somewhat since classical Latin, then Portuguese should not be the only casualty. In Spanish, too, tener does not mean "to hold", most of the time. However, my interpretation of this section is that it is concerned with the structure of the compound tenses of Romance languages. The literal meaning of the auxiliary verbs is unimportant. The're not being used by themselves in these examples, they're being used as auxiliaries. FilipeS 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Words for "more"

This section uses the Italian term mai ("never") as a derivation from Latin magis: while this is true, it is not very significative as an example because the meaning is not strongly related. Also, the explanation given (that it is only used in the phrase "non... mai") is definitely wrong: for example "London is the biggest city I have ever seen" in Italian translates as "Londra e' la piu' grande citta' che io abbia mai visto". I changed the example to maggiore (meaning greater), which I think is much more significative and comes from the same root as magis, but someone kept changing it to mai. (sorry for the apostrophes instead of accents, not my keyboard)

I was the one who reverted your change the first time around. I'm not sure what were the other reverts you talked about. As far as I know, the immediate etymon of Italian maggiore is Latin major, which corresponds to Spanish mayor, Portuguese maior, etc., all of which mean "bigger", not "more".
Your remark about the uses of mai is pertinent, though. As far as I know, non... mai means "no more", but it is true that the word can't be translated as "more" in the example you give. FilipeS 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Mai means literally "never", but differences between the usage of negations in Italian and in English make the translation a bit different. I have no idea however in which cases it can translate to "no more", and being Italian I should. Speaking of maggiore, it does indeed come from maior which shares the same root as magis, so in facts it's not too exact but definitely more significative as an example; I'll look for another word deriving from magis as a more fitting and correct example.
I think you're right about the translation of mai, and I misunderstood the example given in the article. I still don't think we should put words that don't mean "more" in a section titled "words for 'more'", though. It would be better just to delete mai from it. FilipeS 11:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liaison in Portuguese?

This was recently added to the article:

Although falling into the second category, Portuguese also makes use of this same liaison, allowing final s (when preceding a vowel in the next word) to be read as a z.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think you only call it liaison when the consonant is silent some of the time (which is not the case in Portuguese). Can anyone confirm/refute? FilipeS 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this (not because it's false but because it didn't bear directly on the point under discussion, classifying the RLs wrt the two broad strategies of plural formation). You are right, this is not strictly speaking a case of liaison, but some other sandhi phenomenon ("consonant mutation", if you like…) CapnPrep 11:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

<Grin> You're making me feel watched. ;-) FilipeS 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics Features section: suggestions for improvement

I think this section could be improved by adding a detailed discussion of:

  • What happened to the verb tenses, moods, etc., of Classical Latin in the Romance languages: some remained mostly unaltered, a few were completely lost, several were repurposed, and several were reconstructed as periphrases.
  • The new verb forms created by Vulgar Latin / Romance: the conditional, the future subjunctive, the anterior past (passé antérieur, in French), the near future (futur proche)...
  • More recent morpological innovations of the Romance languages, such as progressive aspect forms.
  • Perfectivity in the Romance languages. FilipeS 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of speakers

Where does the number '2 000 000' for the speakers of Lombard come from? I don't mean it is necessarily wrong, but how has it been estimated? On the basis of the 1990 census I estimated some 70% of the population in the Lombard-speaking valleys of southern Graubünden (Bergell/Bregaglia, Misox/Mesolcina, Puschlav/Poschiavo), Switzewrland, and some 40% of the population of Ticino, Switzerland. Estimates for Italy are far more difficult, as Italian censuses are not very informative on this issue.--Jorgengb 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-V distinction in Latin

A recent edit deleted the following paragraph from "Features inherited from Classical Latin":

* Most of them have a T-V distinction, although in many cases it has been considerably transformed since the Middle Ages.

I may be mistaken, but I believe late classical / medieval Latin did have a T-V distinction: tu was informal, and vos was both plural and singular formal. FilipeS 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised I never heard of it. Is there a reference I could look at? Rwflammang 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the following at T-V distinction: FilipeS 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The expressions T-form and V-form were introduced by Brown and Gilman (1960), based on the initial letters of these pronouns in Latin, tu and vos. In Latin, 'tu' was originally the singular, and 'vos' the plural, with no distinction for honorific or familiar. According to Brown and Gilman, usage of the plural to the Roman emperor began in the fourth century AD. They mention the possibility that this was because there were two emperors at that time (in Constantinople and Rome), but also mention that "plurality is a very old and ubiquitous metaphor for power". This usage was extended to other powerful figures, such as Pope Gregory I (590-604). But they note that it was only between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries that the norms for the use of T- and V-forms crystallized.

[edit] Talk:English_language#The_English_people_and_language_are_Romance

'Nuff said. Rhode Islander 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why english first?

Hello, Im spanish and I found quite amazing that when reading the article, the table where there is a comparassion of the romance languages with latin, english appears firs, before latin, I know this is the english version of wikipedia but... are not we taking latin as the original language?? So why dont we just set latin in the first column of the table??? Please Answer, I dont want to change anything before previous discussion. (Sorry for my english, I´m trying to do my best XD)

This is because we may safely assume that people who read the article understand English and would like to know what the word means in English, first. Unoffensive text or character 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know what you mean, but if you put latin first and next to it the english column it wont change a thing, a latin-english comparission will be as easy and obvious as it is now but with the difference that in that way we´d point out the importance of latin as the "mater lingua" of all the rest romance languages, because its latin and not english (from my point of view) the most important language to study in this article.
You Know, this wikipedia its not just for british and USA people, not at all. This english wikipedia its a common job of all the people around the world that knows how to speak in english (the "modern latin" by the way) and colaborate here, I just imagined that putting latin first would be a kind of "piece of respect" to all the people who actually speak a romance language in here.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/m/Talk%7ERomance_languages_a717.html"