Template talk:Portuguese Creoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portugal Portal
TemplatePortuguese Creoles 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.
Portugal To-do:


[edit] Dialects and Creoles

Please, correct this template. Portuguese Creoles, Portunhol, Riverense Portunhol, Galician, and so on are not Portuguese dialects. Ten Islands 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn’t explain myself correctly when I said to “correct this template”. I did not mean to change the title of the table or change the name of the template. I meant to remove languages that are not Portuguese from a template that was comporting Portuguese dialects. Here goes my explanation:
The several Portuguese Lexicon-based Creoles are not Portuguese. Each of the Creole is a different language from Portuguese. They may have a Portuguese originated lexicon, but they are grammaticaly and structuraly significantly different to be treated as if they were Portuguese.
  • Saramaccan is not a Portuguese Lexicon-based Creole. It is an English Lexicon-based Creole, that happens to have a lot of Portuguese originated words.
  • The linguists are not certain if Papiamento is a Portuguese Lexicon-based Creole or a Spanish Lexicon-based Creole.
  • According to my last readings, Cafundó is not a Creole, but rather Portuguese spoken with Bantu words.
  • Simple Portuguese is not a Creole, but rather a Pidgin.
Portunhol and Riverense Portuñol are not Portuguese. They are mixed languages that mix Portuguese with Spanish. The same goes for Porglish that mixes Portuguese with English.
Galician and Fala are not Portuguese. They are Romance languages close to Portuguese.
It makes no sense at all to mix languages that are not Portuguese with Portuguese dialects. That would be implying that those languages are in the same level of Portuguese dialects, what is scientifficaly wrong and insulting. Neither a Galician speaker or a Cape Verdean Creole speaker would like to see their language to be called “Portuguese”, or worse, a “Portuguese dialect”. It would be the same as calling the English language as a “German dialect”.
Even if a table shows separate entries for Portuguese dialects and for other languages, there is no reason to mix it all up. Either the scope remains within the Portuguese languages (i.e., Portuguese dialects) or either the scope gets broader end we talk about related languages (but not the dialects of each of these languages).
If someone wants to get creative, I leave some suggestions:
  1. To expand this template with what are really Portuguese dialects. A good starting point would be this list. For more information, I suggest the readings of the classification of Lindley Cintra (for dialects in Portugal) and the classification of Antenor Nascentes (for the dialects in Brazil).
  2. To make a second template comporting Portuguese Creoles (and, who knows, with French Creoles, with English Creoles, etc.)
  3. To make a third template with.
  4. I could suggest a template with Romance languages but it already exists!
Ten Islands 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No they are not, they are, as it is stated clearly in the title, CREOLES! Do not change the content of this template and go editing it out of every page you can find - that may be constructed as an anti-portuguese POV and vandalism! The Ogre 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you are showing a pretty bad attitude here. Not only you are not being polite, but also you do not want to discuss.
The issue here is not the title in the heading of the table or the name of the template. It doesn’t matter if you write “Dialects and Creoles” or “Portuguese based” or whatever. What is completely wrong is to put in the same bag dialects of a specific language and languages that are NOT the language specified before. If you are not understanding what I’m saying, I suggest you some reading of what a language is and what a dialect is.
First, to put in the same bag dialects and different languages is scientifficaly incorrect because they are two different issues. When you talk about Portuguese dialects you are narrowing the scope within the Portuguese language only. I.e., you are talking about the goegraphical varieties of the Portuguese language. That’s it! When you are talking about “related languages” to Portuguese, now you are going outside the scope of the Portuguese language, and it is not relevant to mention Portuguese dialects in articles that are not about the Portuguese language.
Second, by putting in the same bag Portuguese dialects and languages that are not Portuguese, you are suggesting that those dialects and those languages are in the same level, in the same category. It seems that you are trying to inferiorize some universally recognized languages by calling them “Portuguese dialects”. That’s absolutely offensive and insulting.
When the template {{Portuguese dialects}} was created, I believe the goal was to easy the navigation between Portuguese dialects. What makes you think that by “expanding” it with languages that are not Portuguese you were improving it? Using that kind of logic, I could give you some examples of other things that would be mixing different issues:
If you are not understanding those silly examples above, at least take a look at the English dialects template, where English Creoles are not listed, and “closely related” languages such as Frisian and Dutch are not listed either. Take a look at the French dialects template, where French Creoles are not listed, and “closely related” languages such as Occitan and Romansh are not listed either.
And at last, before accusing anyone of being “anti-Portuguese” (I didn’t understand if it was the Portuguese language or the Portugese people, but it doesn’t matter), think a little to see if it not you who’s having an ultra-nationalist or neo-colonialist attitude by bringing under the Portuguese language languages that are not the Portuguese language. And you know it. You know it because you wouldn’t dare to put this template of yours in the Galician article, you would be immediately reverted by Galician speaking users. You wouldn’t dare to make a template like this one in the Portuguese Wikipedia because you would be immediately reverted by anyone.
By the way, deleting some other people’s text in the discussion page is vandalism.
Ten Islands 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello TenIslands. First of all let me apologise. I completely agree with all your reasoning. And my intent was never "an ultra-nationalist or neo-colonialist attitude". I was just trying to make a nice template for navigation. Again my apologies for my attitude. In fact, it was the result of me not seeing (don't know why...) your reasons (I did not meant to delete them!) - that is why I acted the way I did, reverting all your changes. I belive the existence of two templates is the best solution of all. Thank you for your work and patience. The Ogre 12:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not including galician can only have a racial, therefor racist, explanation.

[edit] Papiamento

Stating that papiamento is an Iberian-based creole is INCORRECT. I know that some sites as ethnologue.org states that, but IT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE ORIGIN NOR THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE. Papiamento has its origins on GUENE, (an afro-portuguese creole quite similar to that of Guinea-Bissau), that was brought to the Dutch Caribbean. This creole entered in contact with the Portuguese of the Jewish emigrees from Brazil, Cape Verde and Netherlands. The Spanish influence that is obviously big in today´s papiamento comes much later, in the XIX century, via Venezuela. The respected linguist and poet Frank Martinus Arion states that in his book KISS OF A SLAVE, as also as the majority of the people involved in the studies of Papiamento. The classification of Iberian based creole would be genuine in just TWO cases: The first, if you wanted to express the uncertainty that surrounds today´s language about the percentage of the influence of Spanish, and the percentage of the Portuguese influence; the second, if you want to suggest that both Portuguese and Spanish, at the same time, at the same period in history, contributed to form the creole. Also, a classification as an Iberian-based creole won´t consider the extreme similarity (confirmed) about papiamento and all Portuguese creoles from Africa, in vocabulary, structure, syntax, word corruption and modification, etc. Also, papiamento received contributions from English and Dutch, in the same process it received words from Spanish language. If the Iberian-based term is justifiable, why not English/Iberian creole or Ducth/British/Iberian creole? Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.48.1.225 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)