Talk:Galician-Portuguese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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: edit purge Portuguese COTW Wikipedia:Portuguese Collaboration of the Week/Current Portuguese COTW Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots of crap to remove there Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

[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!