|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
220.127.116.11, I acept your changes at the moment because I don´t want to begin a war of editions during the development of the article. But I would thank you to login in next time, and begin a discussion before make debatable changes.Uhanu 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dialect not language
Most authors speak of Cantabrian as an Astur-Leones dialect. There is not a single verifiable and reliable source in the article validating the denomination "language". It is not even accepted as such by Ethnologue (that even consider Extremadurian fablas a language, though linguistically closer to A-L). Unless this can be verified soon, I will move this page to Cantabrian dialect from its current location and rewrite the intro accordingly. The current title is POV. Regards, Asteriontalk 12:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. The Spanish page is an absolute disaster. It could perhaps be moved to a combined A-L page.
Compared to Castilian
We need valid sources for this article. Even the Red Book one is down (so it doesn't apply anymore). I would like to see some sources clearly stating Cantabrian is a language and not a group of Dialects with more than obvious differences.
Also, I suggest moving the article to Cantabrian DialectS with an S in the end until Cantabrian is proven to be a single dialect, or language. This is not going to happen as far as I can tell, given that these dialects are more distant one another than some languages that are commonly regarded as independent (Swedish and Norwegian, for example, are, closer in every possible way, than Pasiegu and Lebaniegu).
- The problem I see with your proposal is that no language is really anything but a group of dialects, though a written standard might provide the illusion of unity. About Pasiego and Lebaniego being so far apart, I find it difficult to believe. Jotamar (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that is an old tricky reasoning, with an easy counter-example: if languages are anything but groups of dialects, then we might as well think Cantabrian Dialects are just dialects of either Spanish Castilian or Asturian, and should be listed as such.
- Languages are groups of Dialects whose speakers find themselves as speakers of the same thing. Example: Basque Dialects are further removed than many languages, but their speakers consider themselves speakers of the same language. The opposite might be said for Swedish and Norwegian, whose speakers consider different languages even though they share mostlinguistic features.
- Summarizing: if you think Cantabrian is a language, somebody needs to provide this article with some verifiable sources that clearly state so; I say veriafiable meaning: papers by liguists, books by liguists, and such. Meanwhile, the only thing that is obvious, is that there are some romance codialects (sister dialects evolved from latin) in different parts of Cantabria, which differ from/relate to Castilian Spanish and Asturian (and from/to each other) in a certain number of linguistic features (which should also be listed, and sourced).
- Lebaniegu and pasiegu aren't so far apart as, let's say, Portuguese and Spanish, but they as far apart as Eonaviego and East Aturian (which are, again, regarded as different languages). I could list 10-15 isoglosses in the blink of an eye (with sources, of course, more could surely be found), mind that East Asturian differs from Lebaniegu in 9 isoglosses, as recognised by the Asturian Language Academy).18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aginst the move you propose, but I would prefer to wait for a couple of weeks, because there might be people opposing the move who are not active in WP right now. On the other hand, even though you seem to have a very precise personal criterion to tell language from dialect, I must remind you of this: There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing a language from a dialect. (Taken from Dialect#Dialect_or_language). --Jotamar (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)