Talk:Romance languages

The words "group", "division" and "section" are ones that I have supplied myself in outlining the tree, and they will continue to be useful for keeping logical track of things as long as I'm on the project. Ethnologue.com doesn't use any such terms except for "family" at the very top of its index. Any comments about what the "official" terms should be, or whether there should be any at all will be helpful. Eclecticology

The words can be fine, the point is the content, as differences among theories can be relevant and produce different classifications. I would perhaps wonder if it's possible to render the scheme less absolute, or open to be not only dependent on ISO codes, allowing some notes about variable interpretations and respective reasons.

In Sardinian language there is an ISO code for Sardinian, Sassarese - (SIL Code, SDC) that, listed as it is now, could bring to consider Sassarese - 30,000 speakers? - as a version, while it generally is not accorded the same importance as the other three (and I would agree it has not that dignity - many other local idioms can be more interesting than sassarese like, just to mention one, in the little village of Gavoi, where there are hebrew etyma and tuscan phonemes, among all); this obviously depends on related theories and authors. Respecting the classification here adopted, but needing to include another classification, how could differences be rendered? - Gianfranco

Thank you for your comments, Gianfranco. In undertaking efforts on the Romance languages, my intention was more to expand the structure, than to be an authority on anything. I would not hold the SIL to be the final authority on anything, but merely a very influential one. At what point two ways of speaking can be considered two distinct languages is and will continue to be a matter of dispute. There is still room left to add further languages. The 30,000 speakers of Sassarese are certainly not the smallest living group that SIL recognizes in the Romance languages, but as groups get smaller it is understandable that they may never have heard about them. There is much merit to your argument in favour of including Gavoiese(?); you are in a much better position to know the facts than I am here in western Canada. Your reference to hebrew etyma is especially interesting because of its parallel in Sardinian to the jewish versions of the major European languages.
So, my conclusion: Go ahead and add a line about the language of Gavoi at the appropriate place, and its non-recognition by SIL. The details of what makes it linguistically different, however, might be better placed on the Sardinian language page since that page has already been started.

(sorry for late answer)

I completely agree, I wasn't discussing the value of your contribution (I sincerely regret if this appeared in my words - I would instead thank you) :-)

About Sardinian language and its classification, the fact is that the main authors (M.L.Wagner, Campus, Bottiglioni, Spano, Luedtke, Sanna, the first that I can remember) suggest different classifications. Eduardo Blasco Ferrer summarises all of them in the form that is already in the article, but still some intense debate is on.

The point is how to attribute the correct value to each of the possible variants: Sassarese has been recognised as directly a version of Sardinian by some, while this was denied by others (it is indeed a half-way hybrid between logudorese and gallurese, so it happens to be more a filiation of gallurese than a sardinian version aside, but...). Certainly it is not a matter of how many speakers, if not for the presumed proportions of the other groups.

About Gavoese, I will try to find the source where I learned about it, that should contain some details too (I read it some 20 years ago, at least), so just the time for the investigation and I'll gladly add it (nothing of sensational, but something). However, it is not a version but perhaps a particular case, geographically situated close to the border between Logudorese and Campidanese areas, basicly logudorese but with some differences. I mentioned it only because it is certainly particular, and not proposing it as another version.

Also, I will add some details on the Sardinian language page, little by little. - Gianfranco

No offense was ever seen in your comments; they were welcome. Knowledge best advances when gentlemen can sensibly discuss their misunderstandings and potential disagreements. They often find, as we have, that there was no disagreement at all. When I do find offense, I can assure you that my sarcasm is unrestrained. I look forward to your contributions to Sardinian. Eclecticology

I'd just like to say that I was very surprised to see what the article describes as "Romance languages", because, to me, nearly all of those mentioned are dialects rather than languages. I'm not saying that the article is wrong (not being a native speaker of a Romance language, I'm hardly in a position to contradict), but I have studied Latin and Romance philology to degree level, and this doesn't tally with what I was taught. Could someone point me to an authority on the subject? user: Deb

Linguistically speaking, there is no defining difference between what is a "dialect" and what is a "language". Every person speaks their own personal idiolect, which can collectively be grouped into largely similar dialects, which can collectively be grouped into largely similar languages. But, this system isn't very rigorous, and there is often more variation within "dialects" that one might consider to be of the same "language" than between what are considered separate languages.

Commonly cited are the dialect continua in Chinese and German; for instance, Dutch is often considered a separate language despite there being no clear cutoff point between the Swiss German dialects, the High German of southern Germany, the Low German dialects of northern Germany, and Dutch; Dutch and Low German ("different languages") are largely identical while Low German and Swiss German ("the same language") are incomprehensible! So why isn't Teach Yourself Dutch filed under the German Language section in your local bookstore? Mainly because the Netherlands is an independant country; as the saying goes, "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy." The question is political rather than linguistic in nature.

That said... In the particular case of the list on Romance languages, it claims to be based on the classification listed at the SIL Ethnologue. Ethnologue is notorious as a "splitter", dividing languages up as much as possible, perhaps sometimes more than appropriate for all purposes. --Brion VIBBER, Wednesday, May 29, 2002

Thanks for that. I had never heard of SIL but I gather from the web site taht it is primarily a religious organisation rather than an academic institution, and therefore I am not so surprised that I have never heard of the classification. I'm only surprised that we are choosing to follow it here. Deb

Deb, the religious impression is, in my view, accurate. However, from what I have seen of their linguistic work, it is fairly rigorous and reliable as a whole. The fact that it is in a sense a "byproduct" of their (parent organization's?) Bible translation work does not reduce its value as a source of linguistic research. It simply means that there may be cases where one has to be cautious of potential biases induced by their religious-based goals. Just my two cents' worth.  :-) pgdudda

I don't disagree with your assessment, and I didn't mean to imply that they were biased. However, I don't think their idea of what constitutes a "language" is exactly mainstream. I suppose that begs the question of whether wikipedia articles should take an old-fashioned, "conventional" view of knowledge.Deb

Whatever the nature of the SIL codes, could someone maybe create a page here explaining them & their origins, and put a link on the page here? -- Tarquin