Talk:Gallo-Romance languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Languages (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject France (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should it List the Five Families of Gallo-Romance?[edit]

According to

The Gallo-Romance Family is composed of five sub-families:

Langues d'oïl : includes Standard French and Walloon.
Franco-Provençal (distinct from the dialect of Occitan).
Occitano-Romance: Catalan. Occitan, or langue d'oc, includes Provençal and Gascon dialects.
Rhaeto-Romance (Rhaetian): Romansh; Ladin; Friulian.
Gallo-Italic languages: Piedmontese, Lombard, Emiliano-Romagnolo and Ligurian.

This is supported by the relevent articles. Should the article be edited to include this? It does include this in the side box, but misses out Occitano-Romance as there is confusion that they may be Iberian (Ibero-Romance). But if you look at the relevant pages they all suggest that they are Gallic (Gallo-Romance) in nature.

Gallo-italian and Rhaetian languages[edit]

Gallo-italian and Rhaetian languages are not gallo-romance, according to their own articles. -- 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gallo-italian languages belong to the gallo-romance languages family!!!!!!!!! The language of Liguria, Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia and Romagna are very very similar to the French language! The Venetian language does not belong to the Gallo-Italic languages, but always part of the Gallo-Romance languages. (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there is for example a significant difference concerning the number : Franco-provençal and Occitan bording Italy have /s/ plural, that none of the Italian languages knows. I suppose, there are others. Nortmannus (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC). Other thing : there is no proparoxytone in Occitan (exept Niçard, the Nice dialect, influenced by Italian) and in Franco-Provençal, that 's another significant difference with all the Italian dialects.
I proceed to add the Gallo-Italic/Italian which are missing. As to the comments above, they seem to be original research/POV, contrary to what e.g. Pellegrini stated, among others. Also, it does not seem to be the case that "Gallo-italian [...] [is] not gallo-romance, according to [its] own article[..]". --Dakrismeno (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong map[edit]

Galo-Romance.png In the introductory table there's this map, with the caption: Historical area of development for strict Gallo-Romance.

Any source? Aside of the weird poing in Italy, this map is of oïl and arpitan languages, not of all gallo-romance languages, not ever the suppose "historical area of development". Do they really mean Catalan or Occitan derive from those areas???? -- (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As there's no answer, I'll remove the map. -- (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
First, Catalan and Occitan are not Gallo-Romance (but Occitano-Romance). Second, the point is Faeto and Celle di San Vito, where a Franco-Provençal dialect is spoken. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Since none of your objections hold water, I have restored the map. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke - what 'development' of the language occurs or has occurred in Faeto? If you want to get down to it then, you might as well include all areas where French is currently spoken - as they are likely to have influenced the development of the language in Quebec.

Also, what citations do you have for the language being spoken there? Montalban (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montalban: See Faetar dialect. Enough citations?
Obviously it would be impractical and distracting to show all the regions in the world where French is currently spoken. Since the map obviously shows modern language boundaries, not early medieval ones (given that we don't know them precisely), it is only consistent to include Faeto (which has been Arpitan-speaking since the 13th century, so clearly there was time enough for a lot of development!). But if the spot bothers you so much, just remove it (you need not ask anyone for allowance; just be bold). I can't (and I don't bother finding out how I can, because this tiny detail doesn't bother me). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


It is said:

Some specialists add Catalan[2] and it is sometimes classified together with Occitan inside an Occitano-Romance subgroup too.[3]

Some specialists? Is there any serious specialist who does not classify Catalan as gallo-romance? Is there any serious linguist who separates such twin languages as Catalan and Occitan in two different branches?

-- (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As there's been no answer, I've proceeded to do the changes. -- (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Most linguists consider Gallo-Romance as the ancester of Langue d'oil and Franco-Provençal, no other language. Langue d'oc and Gallo-Italic do not belong to this group. The theories including them are old or fringe theories. But Catalan is together with Occitan, that is to say not Gallo-Romance. Nortmannus (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem lies in omitting languages altogether. Should Gallo-Italic and Rhaeto-Romance be treated as primary branches of Romance? As a group together? (I've reverted some of the edits that made this article incoherent – such as excluding French but claiming that the northern French lects were ancestral to Ligurian – until we work this out.) Note that this article has a history of going back and forth, each side adding more exclamation points to their reversions. It would be nice if we had a RS that addresses the issue. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on, people. Let's work out something sensible. Now we're saying Italy is in France. Also, if Bec and Camproux say that Ligurian comes from Normandy, why were you marking it dubious that the Italo-Romance languages are part of Gallo-Romance? — kwami (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The broad classification we have may simply be a holdover of Ethnologue. No comments? — kwami (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Have you seen the comments at Talk:Iberian Romance languages#Occitano-Romance originates from Iberia?? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Gallo-Romance section of Romance languages into Gallo-Romance languages article[edit]

I propose that the bulk of the Gallo-Romance section of Romance languages be merged into this article (Gallo-Romance languages).

As it currently stands, this article is little more than a list of languages within the family. I feel readers would be far better served by having all the information particular to the Gallo-Romance languages here as it would be easier to find and would make for easier reading. It also seems somewhat strange to have a section in a child article (this article) which simply points to a section of the parent article for information on a topic particular to the child.

If nothing else, at 234,037 bytes (≈229 kB), Romance languages is well over the recommended split threshold of 100 kB (WP:SIZESPLIT), and should probably have other parts split off as well (I wouldn't be surprised if the Linguistic features section was over the limit in its own right).

If circumstances were different I would consider being bold and just doing it, but I'm not quite sure how best to integrate the information into this article or what should remain at the source (if anything). Also, the fact this hasn't been done already (it seems pretty obvious to me that this should be done) gave me pause. (Perhaps there's some reason to keep it as-is which is alluding me or some old consensus or something.)

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn(talk) 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been bold and gone ahead with the merger as it doesn't seem to have been controversial. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn(talk) 22:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)