|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in France or Spain may be able to help!
the length of the River Garonne is 452m wide
The source co-ordinates shown in the infobox are wrong: at its nearest to the place marked the river is broad and well established, running alongside the Lleida–Vielha road. I propose to add the westernmost co-ordinates, at the foot of the Pic Aneto, to the infobox. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
As I'm about to propose deleting a section on a page I haven't been involved in, it's probably better to bring it up here first. It concerns the "etymology" that I happened across looking for something else. My problems are as follows:
- Agud and Tovar's etymologies have largely been binned by etymologists and vasconists alike
- it has been proven that Proto-Basque did not have words with initial k-
- Agud & Tovar contains no such etymology. I have looked through all of them and neither Garonne, Garuna or Garumna appears in it. I suspect that whoever added the section went to the nearest match he fancied - karra which is claimed to contain the Basque root karr- "rock" 8and which contravenes the above thing about k-). But still no mention of the river.
- There is no explanation of why we know the meaning of this "pre-IE suffix -onna".
- I have no knowledge at all of the subject in question and it appears that User:Akerbeltz does, so I will merely point out that the one hand we have two reliable sources supporting the article definition (the second, which I have yet to add, is Vennemann, Theo, ed. (2001). Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs). Den Haag: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 706. ISBN 3-11-017054-X.) against an assertion that there has been a "flight of fancy". On Wikipedia, given the verifiability not truth policy, references win out against assertions every time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Vennemann also, sadly, falls under flights of fancy. Quoth Larry Trask: "More recently..Theo Vennemann has proposed to identify Basque with Old European on the Basis of river names (Vennemann 1994a)... None of the roots or siffixes listed by Vennemann for Old European looks anything like Basque, save (inevitably!) for the root *Is, which Vennemann of course wants to identify with Azkue's putative root *iz "water", discussed and dismissed as a phantasm in Chapter 5. Third, a sizable number of roots identified by Vennemann have forms which would have been impossible in Pre-Basque: Drava-, Kara-, Pala-, ... I would suggest that what Vennemann has identified is, at best, an agglutinating language that looks very little like Basque."
- As for Agud and Tovar, Trask also neatly sums up: "The result is an annotated dictionary including all the serious and fanciful etymological proposals which have ever appeared."
- That aside, as I said, Agud & Tovar do NOT list Garonne. Anywhere. So one of these objections falls prey of WP:OR! I'll have to check what Vennemann actually says but the problem with Vennemann is, as I demonstrated above, that he's seen to be unreliable (putting it mildly). Don't get me wrong, I'd love for his Old European to be true but it just doesn't stack up. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
About the source
Please, have a look at this application: http://www.icc.cat/vissir2/ And at this one: http://www.ign.es/iberpix/visoriberpix/visorign.html
According to it, please take note of this facts:
- The source "Aigualluts" (Trou de Toro? no such name in Spain, nor Spanish, Aranese, or Catalan for that place) is at 2.000 m.a.s.l., and the indicated source (Salterillo-Barrancs ravine) is at 2.300 m.a.s.l. The junction Joéu-Garona is at 800 masl.
- The Ruda-Garona river source, at Ratera-Saboredo cirque is at 2.600 m.a.s.l. ( ). The Ruda-Garona junction is at 1.270 masl.
- Furthermore, The Ruda-Garona runs for some 12 km before joining the “Garona de Beret” stream. The Ruda Valley is the natural head of Arán (Garonne) Valley.
- The Joèu (from Aigualluts to Las Bordas) runs for 11 km.
- Furthermore, the Joèu provides 2,16 m3/s. of water to the Garonne, wich before joining the Joèu carries 17.7 m3/s. (http://oph.chebro.es/DOCUMENTACION/HidrogeologiaPirineos/3.2.ACUIFEROS.htm & ftp://oph.chebro.es:2121/BulkDATA/DOCUMENTACION/DirectivaMarco/Garona/DocumPrevia%202008.pdf).
- Further more: possible sources, higher than Aigualluts: Estanhots de Horno, ( ), source of Nere river.
Lac deth Tuc de Podo, Colomers Cirque (), source of Aiguamog river.
Why so should be Aigualluts considered the Garonne source? Please, will you have a look at this and correct the article?
My contribution to the article with this info has being delete without an apparent or reasoned reason. Why?
- I don't expect my recent addition of a quote from Lambert's book to be the last word, and other points of view from other reliable sources would be welcome. I wouldn't, however, want to see any original research, such as the calculations above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Lamberts opinion is a very respectable opinion, but it cant ignore the proven facts. The facts are shown in a source as reliable as the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (Spain), and its 1:25.000 and 1:10.000 cartographyc series, DEM, GIS, and geodesic data. The "calculations above" are not an "original research" at all, nor calculations. The provided links show the published data from Instituto Geográfico Nacional and the Institut Cartografic de Cataluña. This data prove that Aiguallut is not the highest source at all, nor the biggest, nor the longest. So, which criteria should we use to asignate the right sources to rivers? It can´t be Lamberts arbitrary opinions, can it? Another example of "arbitrary opinion": Why "Trou de Toro"? Because Lambert wants to re-baptize a well known spanish place? Please, do provide the Lamberst criteria to asignate Garonne source. If it is the heigh of a permanent string, Aigualluts is not the source. If it is the volume, Aigualluts is not the source. If it is the lenght, Aigualluts is not the source.--EfePino (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. As the WP policy indicates, we're looking for verifiability, not truth. The three sources I have used for verification are limited to those in French and English, (plus some Catalan, as it's not too difficult for someone with a bit of French) because that's all I can read. It's obviously tricky to arrive at a definitive answer about the length of a river when it's partly underground, so if other reliable sources in Spanish contradict Professor Lambert, lets have them! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou. The Joèu´s total lenght from Aigualluts is 11.5 km (of wich 4,5 are underground course). Sorry I don´t see it tricky, I´ve used the most favorable option for Aigualluts theory, and to verify, no English, nor French, Spanish or Catalan is needed. Reading the map is enough, and that is extremely easy to verify. I´ll say the same about the heigh and the volume. But anyway, I´ll provide more reliable sources, even though I don´t honestly think is necessary. By the way, thanks a lot for your patience bearing my bad english. May be you would like to help me with my writing!--EfePino (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)