Template talk:Romance languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] List - languages and dialects

This list contains elements like "Rioplatense Spanish", "Quebec French", etc. These things don't belong here. They're not languages. Only alternate names for languages should be included. Joeldl 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose this:

Aragonese • Aromanian • Arpitan or Franco-Provençal • Astur-Leonese • Catalan-Valencian-Balear • Corsican (Gallurese, Sassarese) • Dalmatian • Emiliano-Romagnolo • French (other langues d'oïl [ Picard, Walloon, Lorrain, Norman and Jèrriais, Champenois, Burgundian, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Poitevin-Saintongeais ], French creole) • Friulian • Galician and Fala • Istriot • Istro-Romanian • Italian (Central Italian and Romanesco, Tuscan) • Judeo-Italian • Ladin • Ladino • Ligurian (Genoese, Monégasque) • Lombard (Insubric [ Milanese, Brianzoeu and Canzés, Ticinese ], Orobic) • Megleno-Romanian • Mozarabic • Neapolitan • Occitan • Piedmontese • Portuguese • Romanian-Moldovan-Vlach • Romansh • Sardinian • Sicilian • Spanish (Castilian) • Shuadit • Venetian (Talian)

Why? There might well be a case for listing languages by group rather than alphabetically, but I can't think of any reason for listing some languages by group and the other alphabetically. Besides, with particular reference to grouping all the Oïl languages together, surely French should be listed alphabetically with the others under O? I don't support the proposal. Man vyi 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Despite appearances, I didn't make the proposal above. Joeldl 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why some dialects are listed as languages in the alphabetical order, while Western Lombard dialects, notwithstanding they were listed just as dialects in parentheses, have been totally cancelled. I refer to the Oïl, Occitan and Spanish dialects such as: Arpitan, Astur-Leonese, Auvergnat, Aupenc, Burgundian, Champenois, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Gascon (and Aranese subdialect), Languedocien, Limousin, Lorrain, Norman, Poitevin-Saintongeais, Picard, Provençal, Walloon. -84.223.79.127 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the various Western Lombard dialects have recognised status as regional languages? It's not clear from the linked articles that this is the case. By comparison, Arpitan, Champenois, Gallo, Norman etc are administratively recognised regional languages of France, and Walloon is further a regional language of Belgium. This is by no means a hard and fast criterion for inclusion in the template, but I'd suggest that varieties of Romance that have some recognised status as "languages" should certainly be listed. Man vyi 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Limousin is a dialect of Langue d'Oc. Like this, others are dialects of Langue d'Oïl. The distintion must be linguistic, not politic. Then, the decrets of a government can't influence Wikipedia. 84.223.79.127 07:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But the problem is that the distinction between a "dialect" and a "language" (if one must be made) is a political distinction rather than a linguistic one. Man vyi 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago, I removed the Lombard dialects from the template just for the reason I gave in the edit summary. Why list so many dialects of Lombard, and not of other Romance languages, which are similary fragmented into numerous distinct varieties? I think the template is fairly well-balanced now, with perhaps slightly too much attention for Norman (on the other hand, the Channel Island dialects are of special relevance to the English speaking community, and thsi is after all the English Wikipedia). Further, I'd also propose not to list Eastern and Western Lombard separately, but rather have "Lombard (Eastern · Western)". I have no idea whether the differences between Western and Eastern Lombard are big enough to consider them separate languages, but it will make the template easier to browse if you put Lombard under the letter L. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremaduran language

If nobody oppose, i´ll add Extremaduran language into the asturleonese group. Greetings! Better geta 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy

I oppose an arrangement into so-called "main" languages and "others". The place for discussing numbers of speakers is in the relevant articles. The template is for navigation and arrangement alphabetically within linguistic group should be sufficient. Man vyi (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree for exactly the same reasons stated above. Charvex (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The Italo-Western section has so many languages that it renders that section useless to someone looking thorugh it. Instead of main, there should be a categorization based on # of speakers. i.e. main ones should be instead languages with more than 10 million speakers. I am not trying to disregard other less used languages, but I still think that the template should be useful to a readed, not just a stew of languages thrown together.Nergaal (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How is alphabetical order "a stew of languages thrown together"? Man vyi (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
you are intentionally missing my point. the problem is having a way to notice the more relevant language branches. the order is not the only way to label the more relevant languages; a skilled user could use colors or some other trik. the point is to make sure that the clearly-more-used languages stick out (same way the dead ones do).Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
But why, in a navigation template, is it important for languages with more speakers and fewer speakers to be arranged separately? How does this make navigation easier than an alphabetical arrangement? Man vyi (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not. In all the other smaller 3 sub-classes it is not necessary. but in the Western sub-group, there are so many that it is hard to get anything out of that group by looking at the template. my point is that there needs to be some sub-classification in the southern group, be it by numbers, or by some other criteria; for the sake of navigability if informativibility.Nergaal (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
So far nothing persuades me that a straightforward alphabetic arrangement should be abandoned. Man vyi (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
you still haven't presented an argument to why the languages with more numerous speakers should not stick out from the mass of other less used languages. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I had stated that in my initial post of the thread. Whether you're persuaded by it or not is a matter for you to decide, just as I remain unpersuaded by your claim that splitting languages by demographics improves navigability. Man vyi (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallo-Italian langauges

I think Gallo Italian languages should appear amongst the main Western European languages. Firstly because they are numerically relevant (they have more speakers than Catalan), then because they form a coherent group on its own. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References for categorisation

Gallurese: an evident similarity, indeed, exists between Corsican (especially southern dialects) and Gallurese, and as evident as the distance from the bordering Sardo logudorese [...] in the recent regional law (No. 26, 1997) voted by the Sardinian Parliament, the Gallurese (with the Sassarese) is not considered as a Sardinian language.. it:Lingua gallurese Nel periodo compreso tra il 1347-48 e il 1400 la Gallura si spopola a seguito di un'epidemia e di incursioni piratesche e ha inizio l'insediamento di massa di numerose famiglie provenienti dal sud della Corsica (allora dominio genovese) che importano nella Gallura interna i propri dialetti orali (ormai fortemente influenzati dall'influsso pisano e genovese in Corsica) assimilando contestualmente diversi vocaboli e toponimi dalle parlate logudoresi, (circa il 18-20% del lessico attuale), nonché alcuni termini catalani. Questa immigrazione è stata tra l'altro sostenuta dal governo aragonese al fine di ripopolare le deserte terre galluresi.

Sassarese: is a Southern Romance language and a diasystem of the Sardinian and Corsican [...] it is based on a mixture of different languages. In the recente regional law Sassarese is distinct from gallurese and sardinian, it's born before gallurese from a different population, with ages of autonomous evolution. --Felisopus (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source for these statements. If it is such an obvious statement you should not have problems finding references. Right now there is a fairly serious reference showing the opposite. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
? The sources are in the same articles i've linked! [1] [2] [3]. For Gallurese this article is a featured article on the italian wikipedia. --Felisopus (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Official Website of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia
  2. ^ Altre lingue . Official Website of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia
  3. ^ Max Leopold Wagner, "The problem of the geographical region to be attributed to Gallurese and Sassarese" in "Neolatin Culture 3" (1943), pages 243-267 - Max Leopold Wagner, "La questione del posto da assegnare al gallurese e al sassarese" in "Cultura Neolatina 3", 1943, pp. 243-267


Koryakov Yuri, Based on the map published in "Koryakov Y.B. Atlas of Romance languages. Moscow, 2001.
Koryakov Yuri, Based on the map published in "Koryakov Y.B. Atlas of Romance languages. Moscow, 2001.

Sardinian (26), Sassarese (19) and Corsican/Gallurese (18)... --Felisopus (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can only guess why are you holding onto this view so much. Here are my problems:
  1. your references are not linked to linguistic sources
  2. wiki maps are the last place you should look for as references. this map in particular has an incredible amount of 'approximations'
  3. official sites of autonomous regions can allways be tempted to surpass scientific agreement for political reasons
  4. the last reference is from 1943. since then maaany categorizations have been changed
  5. ethnologues seems to be a quite reliable source probably based on linguists' opinions (scientifical)
  6. in order to 'beat' what ethnologue says, you should bring a comparably-reliable source

Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Instead, i would like to know why you involved with a classification different from the content of all articles.

  1. My references are documents by language docs, the language policy in the region is carried out by international linguists (Roberto Bolognesi for the LSC). Where did you show that there is no language documents?
  2. This map is used in all articles about Romance languages. If you believe it approximate, you have to show that it is and demand its deletion, otherwise you mustn't say it. "The last place" is better than any place where is asserted the opposite view.
  3. These two documents were made by two different regional governments, and who know the debate on the Sardinian language knows that contrasts concern "campidanese/logudorese" and not the languages of the north. If you can not prove that there are "political" influences you mustn't say it.
  4. .... the references in the articles are from 1859 to 2006. And the papers do not "expire".
  5. Ethnologue seems wrong, as it highlighted in all the articles. Ethnologue is a pragmatic system of reference, not a bible. What you "seem" reliable, it does not become true. Especially since you have brought nothing further to prove that what Ethnologue says is true, when all articles consider the classification of Ethn about Sardinia geographical and not linguistic.
  6. To continue to restore a version you must bring the evidence to support, otherwise you mustn't say it. "I think Ethn is the most reliable" is not a evidence but a personal opinion.

--Felisopus (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallo-Italian and Gallo-Rhetian languages

They form a subgroup on their own, the Gallo-Romance languages, as opposed to Ibero-Romance, so another subgroup has to be introduced.

Occitan besides is a Gallo-Romance language. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

This template seems to introduce its very own take on the Romance languages and does so without providing a single source. Are we to understand that Italian is closer related to French than to Corsican? Any linguist would find the claim utterly absurd, but this template doesn't shy away from it. And how come Aragonese ended up in a category of its own? What happened to the well-known distinction between Eastern and Western Romance languages? While the Italo-Western theory is a well established theory, it is by no means the only one. This template varies between some factually correct information, some unsourced preferences for one theory over another WP:OR and some obvious errors. JdeJ (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By not providing a single source you mean you are blind and cannot read? Nergaal (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I recommend you to change your behaviour and to read WP:NPA. Second, Ethnologue is a database on how many people are expected to speak certain languages, it is not a scholarly source for classifying languages. JdeJ (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
First you said that there are no sources, now you say that the source is not a good one. If you decide on the latter, then bring a source saying that either ethnologue is not reliable or that the enthnologue is wrong in this case. Nergaal (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, this, this and this tend to contradict what you are saying. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean that Ethnologue claiming that Ethnologue is great is a neutral source? The linguistic community around the world begs to differ. To begin with, we have the case in question. Ethnologue classifies Italian as closer to French than to Corsican, that's the very topic here and Nergaal hasn't yet commented on it. There's an obvious error and it's not made on some little known language group, but on one of the largest and best known language families in the world. To be perfectly honest, I've found Ethnologue being wrong in most language families and most countries. But don't take just my word for it, here's a British linguist outlining in detail all the errors occuring within the UK. [1]. As he points out, Ethnologue lacks expertice, contains many obvious errors and seems to be unaware of the classification of even well-known languages.JdeJ (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative resource supporting your statements? Or is it just personal research? Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that you take the time to read through my post before commenting on it the next time? If you had done so, you would have found the source, a rather detailed descriptions of all the errors Ethnologue make. And that's just in one country, they make other mistakes elsewhere. Such as claiming that Italian would be closer to French than to Corsican. Open any book on the Romance languages (I recommend Routledge's The Romance Languages) and read for yourself. JdeJ (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems that sarcasm does not work here. I asked for a source for your sttement. The link you provided is not published in a journal, is hosted on a link that I have no reason to believe it is not personal, and is 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! years old. All in all it is definately not the most reliable source. The ones below: why is Encarta more reliable? why is a random map on a course website at Groeningen a good reference? it is almost a personal website; and the last one says that Corsican is "close to the central Italian dialects"; it does not necessary mean it is not in a different subgroup. Do you have a published paper in a journal or something that cannot be interpreted loosely? Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, sarcasm requires certain skills when delivered so I recommend you try to focus on more fact based writing. It is nice to know that you don't agree with any sources that don't share your view. Thanks for the umpteen exclamation marks, they really made all the difference to your argument. I note in passing that you yourself, for all your craving for sources, haven't provided a single source whereas I've provided quite a lot already. Ethnologue is not an academic source on linguistic relationships. They try to put together information, just like Wikipedia, and sometimes they fail. If you have any source showing that Italian is closer to French than to Corsican, I'm very interested in reading it. Untill then, I consider my "bad" but existing sources superior to your excellent but imaginary sources. As for published material, I can refer to these two standard references on Romance languages [2]

, [3]. JdeJ (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I much preferred the straighforward alphabetical arrangement we had before - much simpler for navigation, and the articles are the place to explain the various theories of categorisation. Man vyi (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Man vyi, going back to the previous alphabetical arrangement would be an improvement over the template we have now. JdeJ (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this as well. As cool as this template is with the sub-classifications, it gets to a bit of contention in borderline cases. Unless I'm mistaken and there are no borderline cases and linguists generally agree on the subclassification of all Romance varieties. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic sources contradicting the template

I'll be happy to include references from some proper academic books on this subject, none of which classifies Corsican as closer to Sardinian than to Italian, but here are just a few sources right away to show that the definition used in this template is at very least contested. In reality, it's an invention of Ethnologue and not based on any linguistic facts. University of Groningen [4] Encarta [5] Eurolang [[6]] JdeJ (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Encarta just an encyclopedia? Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)