Talk:Galician-Portuguese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_Galicia
Galicia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Galicia which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to Galician history, language and culture. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.
Portugal Portal
Galician-Portuguese is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

See also Talk:Galician-Portuguese language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Galician-speaking regions in Portugal?

This is a comment on a piece of information recently added to the article:

According to Ethnologue there are 15 000 speakers of Galician in the Portuguese region of Trás-os-Montes; these Portuguese speakers of Galician were not influenced by the Castillian language, they are considered in Portugal as speakers of Portuguese.

I have never heard of such a thing, although it's true that Ethnologue claims it.

I think they've let the peculiar characteristics of the Portuguese dialects spoken in northern Portugal confuse them (not surprising, considering they aren't even able to spell Trás-os-Montes properly). In that part of the border, there is a dialect continuum. But I don't think there is any objective criterium by which they could claim some Portuguese are "really" speaking Galician. The opposite could just as easily be argued. FilipeS 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: it's an amazing claim. Dialect continuum is the right word for it Ripcohen 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no question about the common origin of Galician and Portuguese. In the 13th century there was no difference, or no differences significant enough to justify any distinction between them, even as dialects of the same language. What we have today are two languages that are closely related, and whether we call them dialects of the same language depends on our definition of dialect. I'm afraid it's a question too often treated (above all in Galicia) with political bias or political aims. RC ((Not being Portuguese or Galician, or even European, I can hardly be accused of a nationalistic bias!))

I'm afraid that's an illusion. I've observed again and again that foreigners also have their biases in these issues. Perhaps it's impossible not to have one. Anyway, thanks for the contributions. Regards. FilipeS 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an illusion. I am a philologist; my analysis of these matters has nothing to do with loyalty to Portugal or to Galicia (Spain), etc. Please don't sing me the tune about the impossibility of complete objectivity -- I heard it long ago, and I agree. This is another matter. We can ask, for instance: 'is there any significant difference between texts by Galician and Portuguese authors in the cancioneiros?' (And of course one can argue that there was a levelling when the text was copied). Or we can ask: 'is Ramon Lorenzo right to insist that there was already a split in 13th cent. prose?' Or: 'are the Cantigas de Santa Maria written in 'pure' Galician?' At the root of these questions there is an ignorance of historical linguistics. The alleged differences are utterly trivial compared to, say, the differences in ancient Greek dialects (yes, that's my remark in the text of the article and it's based on my reading of ancient Greek texts). At most therefore we could talk about 'different dialects' of GP. There are not two languages in the 13th century. If you care to argue that one, let me know on what grounds!

[edit] Galician-Portuguese culture

Galician-Portuguese is not just a language but a culture and an Euro-region.

Gailician-Portuguese is today an endangered culture and much work is being done to keep alive the endangered oral traditions.

-Have a look at the following websites:

An OFFICIAL website of Corcubion City Council's where there are the language options of: Galician and Galician-Portuguese (Galician-Portuguese is how the Portuguese language is called)
http://www.corcubion.info/index.html
Galician-Portuguese culture in the Galician-Portuguese euro-region:
http://www.opatrimonio.org/index_en.asp
videos about the common culture:
http://www.opatrimonio.org/en/videos.asp
in youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVmiJa_kTw&mode=related&search=
students’ radio:
http://www.pontenasondas.org/

Ega 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This page is about Galician-Portuguese, the language. If you wish to write about a Galician-Portuguese culture, I think you should start a new article, or perhaps mention it at the articles about Portugal and Galicia (Spain). FilipeS Regards. 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi.The culture section is about "oral traditions" which means language. Language is culture. The scope of the oral traditions that still exit today goes from the language or vocabulary used in the folkloric traditions and in the jargon used by fishermen , farmers or professionals of any traditional craft. I think it is well referenced in the article, it is about language. The Galician-Portuguese common culture linked to the oral traditions and expressions was the center subject in the candidacy for Intangible Heritage of Humanity of UNESCO. I am going to change the title of the section and add "oral traditions". Regards Ega 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Language part of culture?! What an amazing idea.

[edit] General Comments

On the early documents cited from late XII please see Ivo Castro, Introducao a Historia do Portugues. Geografia da Lingua. Portugues Antigo. (Lisbon: Colibri, 2004), pp. 121-125 (with references).

(can somebody please put in cedilha and accents?!)

Hi. Is that the source of the following claims you've added to the article?

It has been claimed that the Notícia de fiadores, written in 1175, is the oldest known document written in Galician-Portuguese, but scholars have rightly criticized this classification.

The source is my brain and my experience. Ivo Castro provides transcriptions and some bibliography. As a philologist able to read Latin and GP I think I can distinguish between the two.
Kindly read Wikipedia:Attribution.
You can call I. Castro the source; the judgement is my own. Are we not allowed to have our own judgements? There are many 'sources', i.e. published books and articles, full of non-sense in this field.
No, you are most emphatically not allowed to write our own judgements in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
That is simply insulting. I am among other things a textual critic. Critic, as you must know, derives from the root of the Greek verb krinein, 'to judge'. We are necessarily expressing our judgements as scholars, but that is a far cry from declaiming from a soap-box. I am not propounding polemical views or trying to advance my favorite themes. It seems to me that you are indeed playing the role of thought-police. I don't think that's quite in accordance with the spirit or the letter of the rules. But since this seems to be the matter that originally upset you, yes, I will simply cite Ivo Castro (and Emiliano) as the sources.
(note:) I see now that my error, from your point of view, was the word 'rightly'. Castro and e.g. Emiliano (cited in Castro's book) have criticized the characterization of the 'Noticia de Fiadores' as Latin. What I meant, of course, is that I agree with them. But instead of just saying, 'Yes, Ivo Castro's book is the source', I intejected my brain between the source and my use of the source. For those who are not brain-dead, there is a nearly unavoidable mediation involved in such matters. But though I thought I was just stating the obvious, I hadn't realized that independent judgement of any kind was strictly verboten.
Also, please explain what you mean by the following:

What they show is that scribes were trying to transcribe their vernacular language by the latter part of the 12th century.

See Ivo Castro on this. I don't know what needs explaining. Intret is not entre (or are you saying it is?)! Why did you delete the documentary evidence? Are you afraid that people who can read these languages might make up their own mind?!
I asked you to clarify the statement, which is frankly written in unintelligible English. Since you failed to do so, I preferred to removed your addition. You are free to rewrite it, now that you've come back.
'frankly written in unintelligble English'? I rather doubt that, but I cannot now find that section. If it is here anywhere on the site (i.e. if you have not deleted forever the evidence of my inability to write in my native tongue) could you please paste it here for all to see?
Go to the main article, and click on "History" (upper right). You will find the previous versions there.
I cannot find it. Since you seem to be the master of this site why not paste it here as I asked?
Lastly, I find the following statement problematic:

Both these documents, however, are written partly in Late Latin (for example: Ego... facio a tibi ...[...]... ut non intret...[...]...super vostros homines... [in the Pacto]), with no more than names, words and small sections in Galician-Portuguese.

tibi is Latin, ti would be GP. ut non intret is Latin (lexicon, morphology and syntax). Super is Latin. what's the problem?!
See below.
Well, early Galician-Portuguese was Late Latin.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. First of all, Late Latin is spread over a huge geographic area, hardly equivalent to GP.
And one of those areas was the one where Galician-Portuguese developed. What I meant was that early Galician-Portuguese was a form of Late Latin, obviously.
That's simply not true; or if it's true, it's only true in a trivial sense, namely that Latin Latin evolved into GP at some point. But we are not dealing with tapes or phonetic transcriptions. What we have are texts, and our judgement as to the language used must be based on the text itself. If intret is a way of writing GP entre, we cannot know that by looking at the text. Intret is a Latin form (and so on), that's all I meant to say. Surely you are not disputing such elementary matters.
I guess I'm going to have to recommend that you also read Wikipedia:Civility, and come back when you've made the necessary adjustment to your attitude, and found some sources to corroborate your judgements.
That's civil? There is nothing that could be construed by a reasonable person as even remotely impolite in what I wrote above. What seems to bother you, and make you think I'm being uncivil, is that you have no substantial response whatsoever to the facts and arguments I present.
Perhaps what you mean is that the scribes were attempting to write Latin, and the way they spoke was actually rather different from what they wrote... Regards. FilipeS 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant what I said. I can't help wondering, perhaps unfairly, if you are a Latinist.
If you want to add contributions to Wikipedia, they should be a) sourced, b) written in good English, and c) preferably contain sound logic. Otherwise, they risk being removed. Read the rules. FilipeS 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, first: I think I can write English and that my logic is sound. Second: I don't see how I can 'source' my knowledge of Latin (must I, for example, 'source' the fact that intret is the 3rd person singular present active subjunctive of intrare?) . And how do I source my knowledge of GP? Shall I cite every dictionary, grammar, critical edition and article in the field (or in both fields [though of course there is no dictionary of GP])? In any event, I've added a few references to satisfy the thought-police. If you like you can add the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Michael Weiss (forthcoming), Outline of the Comparative Grammar of Latin. Shall we then add critical editions of Latin texts from the earliest inscriptions down to .... ?
You will find the answers to your questions about sources at Wikipedia:Attribution. FilipeS 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been civil if sometimes ironic. And you? I have put a list of references on the main page: I understand you want everything referenced, but it seems to me you haven't held yourself to that standard nor have others.

Consider this statement:

"It was spoken at first from the Bay of Biscay to the Douro River, but it expanded South with the Christian Reconquest."

Where is the source for this? And the same is true for most of the statements in the article. This was a wretched piece of 'work' when I found it many months ago. I have spent hours eliminating errors and making small additions and improvements. It seems that you only objected when I took on what seems to be one of your pet topics (the earliest documents in the langauge). What about Norman P. Sacks, The Latinity of Dated Documents in the Portuguese Territory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1941) and Roger Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982)? Why have you not cited those and other works?

Wikipedia articles are NOT normally scholarly articles. They often have no footnotes. Certainly this one does not have any. And according to the rules, they cannot contain any original scholarly contributions. That's certainly playing it safe!

I have said that certain documents (so cherished by some) are written mainly or more than partly in Latin. I need a source to say what is Latin?

With all due respect, your attitude smacks of pedantry. You would rather keep religiously to (your interpretation of) the rules of Wikipedia than to have a better article.

I am trying to play by the rules and have now cited dozens of references (manuscripts, historical grammars, critical editions, and works on the history of the period specifically bearing on poetry, but with reference to some early prose documents) where before there were none. Where are your references?

Your position on 'sources' leads to an absurd conclusion: if Ivo Castro (or anyone else) publishes a horrendous error on, say, a matter of historical phonology, you would prefer to see the published mistake here rather than to have a correct but unsourced or unpublished account of the same sound change ?!. RC

You haven't read any of the pages I said you should read, have you? And you remain rude. I am no longer wasting my time with you. FilipeS 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. I read them. When you have read at least some of the works now on the main page, come back and say something -- something of substance. Calling me names doesn't contribute much to the advance of knowledge in this field, or to improving the article. In the meantime, XAIPE!
Filipe, you have shown hybris and an incredible lack of consideration for my work (I easily qualify as one of the world's top experts in the field of GP philology and poetics, whereas you have shown you known absolutely nothing). So in frustration, since you are such a proktos, I have removed the bibliographic references here, taken from my own edition of the cantigas d' amigo (sic). That list is copyrighted material and only I had the right to put it there. If I could I would undo every correction (of facts, spelling, etc.) on every page I have touched. Stick to your ill-infomred arrogance and mediocrity. I will not again sully myself in the gutter of your mind.137.73.120.57 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)maurice boaz
I'm not involved in this dispute, but I do know that every contribution to Wikipedia is made on these terms: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This encyclopedia would not function at all if editors had the right to demand that their contributions be used only on special terms they invented. So I'm reverting the deletion. Wareh 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was involved in this dispute, but this is my last comment and I shall make no more contributions. When editors such as Filipe and the anonymous 'contributor' to the discussion on 'cantigas d' amigo' see fit to parade their ignorance, to dispute minor points without any knowledge of the basic facts or bibliography, and, beyond those displays of hybris, to insult someone who has devoted a quarter century to research in this field, that says little for their intellectual honesty, let alone their humility. Keep my changes, if you like, keep my texts and translations and bibliography (I submitted them and meant thereby to make them public); but feel just a little shame.Maurice boaz 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)RC/MB

[edit] A.D. vs. C.E.

Could we please use CE (Common Era) instead of A.D.? CE is neutral (i.e. no Christian bias). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.58.204 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Whether you call it "A.D." or "C.E.", you still have a Christian "bias", as you're still using a date with a Christian significance from which to start counting years. Perhaps you should write all the dates according to the Islamic calendar. That would really get rid of the Christian bias. FilipeS 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Islamic or Chinese would be fine. But in the West we commonly count from a fictive year O. 137.73.58.204 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Actually, there is no year "O" (I suppose you meant "0") in the "Western" calendar (currently also used in many other places, too). FilipeS 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satire vs. insult

Filipe: CEM is poetry of insult, not satire. Satire is like Horace's satires. Insult is like his epodes. One is general, the other specific. CEM are the latter.87.74.1.27 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Is that the term that scholars use when they talk about Horace, "personal insult"? They say "he wrote personal insults"?... FilipeS 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It depends. His Satires (Sermones & Epistulae) are satires; but his Epodes are personal insults. (I've asked an expert & will tell you what he says). / He agrees. 137.73.58.204 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Please name one author who regularly calls any of what Horace wrote "personal insults". FilipeS 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying is that in his Epodes (and there alone) Horace uses personal insult. But our subject here is not Horace, it's the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer. Most of these songs heap insult, mockery or scorn on named individuals, and this is one of the characteristics of ancient psogoi, sometimes called 'blame-poetry'. "Here [scil. in iambic verse], the woman is typically not left anonymous: her name is deliberately dragged through the mud" (Peter Bing & Rip Cohen, Games of Venus: an anthology of Greek and Roman erotic verse from Sappho to Ovid [New York and London: Routledge, 1991], p. 6). On the whole subject of scorn, mockery, insult, satire, etc. in ancient poetry, please see the work of Ralph Rosen, including the newly published Making Mockery: the Poetics of Ancient Satire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). sloko 10:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Interesting: they use the word satire, so what's wrong with it? FilipeS 10:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the word "insult" is ever used. It's whether saying "satire" instead would be wrong. The way you brushed it aside, one would think that "personal insult" was some philological technical term. But that's not what I'm getting from our conversation. If Horace's "personal insults" can be called "satire" in polite discourse, why not the cantigas de escárnio e mal-dizer?

I've consulted two leading classicists (one mainly a Greek scholar, the other mainly a Latinist), and both agree that "satire" is the wrong word for Horace's Epodes.
You seem to scoff at the notion that "insult" is a technical term in philology; but is it a kind of speech distingished by contemporary philologists and "insulting song" was in fact a technical term in early Roman law: XII tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putaverunt : si quis occentavisset sive carmen condidisset, quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri (Cicero, de rep. 4, 10, 11). And, in the Middle Ages and on our turf, both Visigothic and Iberian law provided examples of insults and set down punishments for them. See Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio I, Tomus I, Leges Visigothorum, ed. Karolus Zeumer (Hannover and Leipzig, 1002), pp. 462-63: Titulus de conviciis at verbis odiose dictis) and, on Iberian land, for example, Foros de Guarda (cited by Henry Roseman Lang, Das Liederbuch des Königs Denis Von Portugal (Halle A.S: Max Niermeyer, 1894, p. civ): Todo vizinho ou vizinha que dixer mal a seu vizinho, ou a sa vizinha, falsso, ou aleyvoso, ou o nome castellao, ou puta, ou cegoonha, ou mulher boa [...] peyte ao ome 5 m". There are of course many other examples. See A Linguagem dos Foros de Castelo Rodrigo (ed. Cintra) "De deosto (p. 56), and Foro Real (ed. Azevedo Ferreira) livro iv, titulo iii, p. 265. 87.74.42.157 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)rc
We're talking about literature, not law. I realise that you've been quite forthcoming in justifying your choice of words, and I thank you for your patience with my questions and objections.
I was still finishing my response... We are indeed talking about law and custom as well as literature. Please see above. 137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Your changes make no difference. This article is about language and literature, not medieval legislation. Please don't waste the time of both of us with such farfetched justifications. FilipeS 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's now widely agreed that literature cannot be separated from history (social, legal, etc.). Your expression 'far-fetched' is stunningly off the mark. I quoted Roman law because we were talking about Horace (and the quote from Cicero is only slighly earlier than Horace) and I quoted Visigothic law because it was still in force when the 'Christian' kingdoms (and condados) were formed. And the other laws and customs are contemporary with the CEM. You said that 'insult' was not a technical term, and I am showing you that it was.137.73.58.204 11:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Sorry, but I am not impressed by post-modernist waffling. Try again. FilipeS 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced, however, that "personal insult" is a technical philological term, objectively preferable to "satire". Don't get me wrong, I don't claim that "satire" is a better description. I just find "personal insult" a little excessive and crude; I might even say disrespectful.

But most CEM are exactly that: crude and disrespectful! I would recommend an essay of Paul Veyne on this, but must find the reference.137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Paul Veyne, “O folclore em Roma e os direitos da consciência pública sobre a conduta individual” in A Sociedade Romana (Lisboa: Edições 70, 1990), pp. 197-225 (originally published in French in Latomus, xlii [1983]: 3-30).137.73.58.204 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Also, I see that you've rephrased your change to "mainly poetry of scorn, mockery and insult". Why use three words that mean practically the same? Wouldn't one be enough? FilipeS 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that insult, mockery and scorn are synonymous. In any event, I changed the wording after you objected to "insult". I have often referred to CEM with that triad, but if you prefer "insult" alone, by all means change it. 137.73.58.204 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
I think you should ask yourself whether you'd insert those three words into a Wikipedia about Horace. FilipeS 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I certainly would. But I don't intend to contribute to the article on Horace.137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC

Well, I wouldn't. For one thing, one word (as in the previous version of the article) is quite enough. Secondly, while "satire" may not be the best philological technical term to use, neither are "scorn, mockery and insult". Thirdly, here's what the article on satire has to say: FilipeS 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pliny reports that the 6th century BC poet Hipponax wrote satirae that were so cruel that the offended hanged themselves.[6] The confusion with the satyr supported the understanding of satire as biting, like Juvenal, and not mild, like Horace, method of criticism in Early Modern Europe until the 17th century.

There are examples of satire from the Early Middle Ages, especially songs by goliards or vagants now best known as an anthology called Carmina Burana and made famous as texts of a composition by the 20th century composer Carl Orff. Satirical poetry is believed to have been popular, although little has survived.

The tale about Hipponax found in Pliny is a take-off on a famous story about Archilochus well known from various ancient testimonia. Contrary to what the Wikipedia article on Satire says, the word is found first in Horace (S.2.1.1). And note that Quintilian (Inst. 10.1.93) says Satura quidem tota nostra est. That is, it is a Roman invention. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (s.v. 4) defines Satura as "a poem directed at prevalent vices or follies, satire, also satirical verse or satircal style".137.73.58.204 12:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
There's a slight imbalance here: I have read these things in Greek and Latin and you are citing third hand sources without (apparently) having any first hand knowledge of the original texts. Do you really think Wikipedia is the source of all true knowledge?137.73.58.204 12:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
You have presented no sources so far that either:
  • State that the cantigas de escárnio e mal-dizer cannot be described as satire.
  • Make it clear that "scorn, mockery and insult" are three standard philological terms, each with a different meaning.
Where are they? FilipeS 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as obstinate and uninformed pedantic flailing. How can I possibly provide a source that prohibits anyone from calling CEM whatever they choose to call them? Scorn is in the very word escarnho, mockery is in the title of Prof. Rosen's new book (cited above), and I have already shown that 'insult' (vel. sim) is a technical term in law and is used by scholars in referring to psogoi, ancient and modern.137.73.58.204 12:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
You're evading my objections again:
  • Why use three words, instead of just one?
  • You have not shown that "scorn, mockery and insult" are technical philological terms, with a meaning different enough from "satire" to be preferred to "satire", and with a meaning sufficiently different from each other to be used all three at once.
Is 'love poetry' a technical term of philology? Why do I have to show to your satisfaction that three words are better than one here? Perhaps you hold a position of authority in wikipedia of which I am unaware. I suggest you read the CEM before continuing the discussion.137.73.58.204 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
Actually, escarnho (escárnio) does not quite translate as "scorn" (you're the one who is apparently ignorant). They are cognates, but they are false friends to some extent. "Mockery" is a closer translation of escárnio. And either is much closer to the mark than "insult". FilipeS 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I used the word 'ignorant' to refer to you, though it would be richly deserved. I also did not say that 'scorn' translates 'escarnho'; I merely meant to say that the word 'escarnho' has the root of 'scorn' in it, the hypothetical Germanic verb *skarnjan. You might explain to me and all readers what makes you final arbiter of synonyms, technical terms of philology, and the relation between language, culture, history and law, etc.137.73.58.204 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc

I don't think I ever claimed to be the final arbitrer on anything. Calm down.

Ah, but you act as if you were.

One thing I will say, though: what I have to say, I say out here where every one can see it. I don't go and surrepticiously trash other users' talk pages. FilipeS 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I 'trashed' your talk page; and what I wrote was certainly not written 'surrepticiously'. Please feel free to delete my comments. I thought that page was just as open as this one.

What bothers me is that being a linguist (which I fully respect: some of my best friends are linguists...) and obviously not a specialist either in philology or poetry, you adopt so arrogant a tone on topics which are apparently well beyond your ken. I tracked down several references (in Roman, Visigothic, and Iberian law) so that you could see that 'insult' is indeed a technical term, and you brushed them all aside and told me that literature is not law (thanks). Well, in fact there is a very close relationship between legal strictures on insults and literary insults, at least in the ancient and medieval literature I've been discussing. And there is no shame in never having read Archilochus or Hipponax, etc., but if I cite you the latest and best scholarship on these poets, don't cite me a pathetic Wikipedia article on 'satire'. It doesn't say much for the level of your curiosity. 137.73.58.204 13:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc

LOL. And you call me arrogant?!
Let's get one thing straight: the one relevant source you quoted is authored by yourself, isn't it?
I've cited something on GPL by me, yes, but that's my main field of research; I've also quoted you something co-authored by me on ancient erotic invective; and I've quoted you three or four different scholars of ancient poetry, including especially Ralph Rosen, who has a long list of publications in the areas of ancient comedy, iambography and satire and is widely regarded as a top man in that area.
But, look, I'm feeling good-natured today, so I'll try to extend an olive branch one last time. If I am not mistaken, you are the same editor who recently made substantial additions to the main article, including a vast amount of bibliography. I appreciate that, and would like to see you keep contributing. I'm sure you have a lot more to add to it than I ever could.
Yes, I did. Thanks, I accept the branch.
It's regrettable that we got off on the wrong foot, but I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. I propose a compromise. How about rewriting the little sentence we've been quibbling about (silly, isn't it?) as follows?
agreed.

The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer ("songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainly satirical poetry directed at named individuals).

I don't mind at all the use of 'badmouthing' (Bing & Cohen translate maledicere as 'badmouth' in a poem of Catullus in Games of Venus), but I still object to the use of the word 'satire'. To quote an expert: "someone writing iamboi is engaged in a form of combat with a personal stake, someone writing satire typically adopts the stance of a detached observer". CEM falls almost entirely into the former category (iamboi).
What do you say? FilipeS
If you don't like the triad 'insult, mockery and scorn', how about 'insult and mockery'?
I suppose you have good reasons for objecting to the word "satire". Alright, I don't mind leaving it out. I'm still uncomfortable with the word "insult"; I feel that "mockery" is a better translation of escarnho/escárnio. "Scorn" isn't too bad, except that I think the English word has a connotation of "despise" which I don't believe the Portuguese word does. However, it's possible that escarnho had a more aggressive sense in ancient Portuguese, which I trust you're more familiar with than I. Would your suggestion be as follows?

The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer ("songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainly satirical poetry of insult and mockery directed at named individuals).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I'd go with that. Here’s what Giulia Lanciani & Giuseppe Tavani, 'A Cantiga de Escarnho e Maldizer' (Lisboa: Colibri, 1998) have to say : “e até a denominação "poesia satírica" , modernamente usada por alguns estudiosos, não presta justiça à complexidade de um sector no qual são obrigados a conviver, contra a sua vontade, géneros tão diversos como a invectiva pessoal … “ ... etc. (p. 7), and they go on to mention (inter alia) social satire, political sirventes, literary debates, parody, ‘turpiloquio’. How about "a designation which includes a wide variety of genres from personal invective to poetic parody, social satire, and literary debate"? (Laments over the death of famous people are found in the MSS but clearly don’t fit the heading CEM.)

It's a bit lenghthier than the descriptions of the other two types of poetry, but since the article doesn't say much about the cantigas de escárnio that's O.K. I think you can go ahead and make the changes. Regards. FilipeS 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)