User talk:Travelbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archived talk

• /Archive 1 April/May 2006
• /Archive 2 June 2006
• /Archive 3 July-November 2006
• /Archive 4 February 2007

[edit] Österheim

I came across "Österheim" whilst looking at a Barnes and noble historical atlas(Revised Atlas of World History). It is marked as such in 1250 a.d. and has "Buda" right below it, but then the next page showing 1300-1450 shows it as "Gran". -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will mark the entry as such. Travelbird 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French v. Walloon

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your point of view. Walloon language is a “langue d’Oïl” language just as French is. But it belongs to another sub-family. Moreover, this issue has already been discussed on the talk page ([1]) and the conclusion clearly was that Walloon is not a French dialect. From the Wiki fr page on Walloon, it also clearly appears that Walloon and French are different languages and that Walloon cannot be viewed as a French dialect.

I have been myself used to speak Walloon and I can tell you that a French citizen is absolutely unable to understand Walloon since for him it is a foreign language, just as Italian or Spanish, even if all theses languages have common roots.

French is a language initially spoken within the Francien zone, while Walloon is a language spoken in the Frankish zone. This means that stricto sensu, the only “real” French dialects are those spoken in the Francien zone (i.e., the area surrounding Paris and the “Ile de France”).

In fact the relation between French and Walloon is the same as the relation between German and Dutch. They have common roots, but are different languages. Would you call Dutch a German dialect? --Lebob-BE 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I read and understand Wallon is much closer to standard French than Dutch is to German. And even Dutch used to be considered a dialect of German until 1945, when that perception was changed mainly due to political reasons. The fact remains that most (academic, not advocacy group) reports have Wallon as a dialct of French. I might also add that official site of the Wallon region also calls Wallon a dialect (see http://mrw.wallonie.be/sg/dsg/dircom/walcartes/pages/txt103.htm. Travelbird 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I read on the reference you provided: "Picard, wallon, gaumais, ces langues régionales endogènes, font partie du patrimoine culturel de la Wallonie où personne ne conteste que la langue française est la langue officielle.". I don't think that "langue régionale endogène" means dialect. Moroever, for being used to speak Dutch and German as well, I can testify that Walloon (and certainly the Walloon that is spoken in the Province of Liège) is certainly not closer to standard French than Dutch is to German.

There are also other references where a clear distinction is made between French and Walloon ([2]). In fact, both are born around the same period of time (i.e. between the 8th and 12th centuries). Since then, Walloon has had its own evolution and did in fact have not links to the French language. Indeed, the area where the Walloon language is spoken fits more or less with the boundaries of the ancient Bishopric of Liège, which depended in fact from the Holy Roman Empire and not of the Kingdom of France. This means that there were quite limited influence of the French language on the Walloon language but in the contact areas between these two languages. Therefore, I still believe that considering the Walloon language as a French dialect is still a mistaken approach. And I cannot consider this as an original research. --Lebob-BE 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it boils down to this : Some consider it a language, some consider it a dialect("patois", "les dialectes contestèrent le rôle de langue maternelle au français", see abobe source). So that fact needs to be included in the article. Thus "erroneously" is taking sides/POV. If you want to include an adjective, you could use anything from "almost always" to "almost never", but you would have to back that up with sources. Since that will probably prove difficult, it is best to stick with "sometimes", "by some", as that is most neutral as to the number. Travelbird 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)