Talk:Il-Kantilena

Malta High‑importance

	Malta portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta 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.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Anyone care to add a translation? --Corto 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a translation here, at my-malta.com bogdan | ^Talk 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of Peter into other forms of the same name is neccessary? Maltesedog 19:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct category?[edit]

Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic vs. Arabic[edit]

The following is notes section of this article.

Notes This text contains nearly exclusively Semitic morphemes (word-roots). The only non-Semitic word is vintura "luck", sometimes translated into English as fate, from Sicilian. In general, early Maltese texts contain very little non-Semitic vocabulary; even in later texts, poetry tends to use more Semitic word-stock than general language use.

The issue is the use of the word Semitic to describe Arabic roots. While technically correct, I think this is misleading to the reader. The roots are exclusively Arabic. There is no point in going up one classification when the narrower one would do.Hakeem.gadi (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for the note on my talkpage: very decent of you. I disagree that 'Semitic' is misleading.. as you've pointed out, it is factually correct. I wouldn't disagree that the roots are Arabic either, but in the context of Maltese (a seperate language, ultimately descended from, Arabic) it is the most fitting. How about changing it to Siculo-Arabic instead? That would be even more accurate and bolster the reference to Sicilian later in the para. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's a single Arabic root that represents innovation or departure (e.g. adapted borrowing) from Common Semitic state that is used in this text, as I suspect there are plenty of as it would be hard to believe that there are none, the statement that "text contains nearly exclusively Semitic morphemes" would indeed be factually wrong. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the dominant theory is that Maltese is derived from an earlier form of Arabic, using "semitic" in this context is like using "Germanic" when talking about English (which would seem appropriate to me). We could say "This text contains nearly exclusively Semitic (i.e. Arabic) word-roots. The only non-Semitic word is..." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "This text contains nearly exclusively Semitic (i.e. Siculo-Arabic) word-roots. The only non-Semitic word is..."?

Any takers..? golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little odd. Why be so specific? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually using Semitic when discussing Maltese as opposed to the direct ancestor Arabic would be like using Indo-European when discussing the lack of influx of Romance/Old Norse borrowing in Old English (Anglo-Saxon), as opposed to using more precise and apporpriate hiponym Germanic.

As I said - if there's a single Arabic root/morpheme that represents innovation from Common Semitic state, that statement would be factually wrong and misleading to the reader, by insinuating the non-existing conservativeness of Maltese. Semitic in a genetic sense should be exclusively used when discussing or referring to Proto-Semitic roots/words and their reflexes in daughter languages/branches. Labeling Arabic-only roots/morphemes as Semitic strikes me as inappropriate. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (nice simile, Ivan!). "Semitic" is misleading, and could fool readers into thinking Maltese was a separate evolution from Proto-Semitic.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I drew a parallel with English because many English words come from either Norman French or are inherited from its Anglo-Saxon heritage (i.e. English is a language of mixed vocabulary, much like Maltese). Because both Romance and Germanic are branches of the Indo-European language family, using "Indo-European" when discussing English's mixed vocabulary instead of either "Romance" or "Germanic" would be nonsensical because both sources are Indo-European. Using "Indo-European" in this context for English is like using Nostratic for Maltese.

Also, unlike "Indo-European" and like Germanic, Semitic is a branch of a greater language family, namely the Afro-Asiatic language family. Thus, using "Semitic" in this context is not like using "Indo-European."

You'll hopefully notice that our article on Maltese language says "Maltese vocabulary is primarily a large mix of Romance, Semitic, and English influences." So there is precedence.

Because it has been brought up that a reader might be mistakenly led to believe that Maltese had a separate evolution from Proto-Semitic than Arabic (which, honestly, is quite a stretch and an unconvincing reason against using "Semitic"), I reaffirm my suggestion italicized above. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Romance, Semitic and English" sentence is a bad example because it's highly controversial and is currently under dispute.

If you don't like Ivan's simile, perhaps "The Romance portion of the Oaths of Strasbourg contains nearly exclusively Italic roots" instead of "contains nearly exclusively Latin roots" would be a more appropriate comparison.

I still don't see why Semitic is preferable to Arabic. In fact, I think that the objection to Arabic is largely a result of the disproved (but popular in Malta) theory that Maltese is descended from Phoenician.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolgnu, where ever did you hear that any such theory is 'popular in Malta'? I thought you were done with sowing mis-information into Malta-related articles.. I guess you've moved on to the talk pages! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Indo-European only for inherited modern-English words, regardless of the origin of Romance/Nordic borrowings (some of which are non-IE borrowings themselves, and most of which are later innovations that cannot be traced to IE).

OK, let me rephrase my simile: Using Semitic when discussing the non-influx of borrowings into Maltese as opposed to it's immediate ancestor Arabic (in a broader sense of that word) would be like using Germanic when discussing the influx of Romance/Nordic borrowing into modern English, as opposed to using more precise and appropriate hyponym Old English, which was free of them.

Moreover, it's misleading to insinuate that all of the Maltese roots/morphemes exemplified in this text draw from Proto-Semitic stock, and that they're equally related to Arabic roots as are to that of any other Semitic language. There's no need to insist on imprecise terminology.

OTOH, if the substitution of Semitic with Arabic is related to some largely discredited fringe theories of relating Maltese to Phoenician, this suddenly becomes less of a technical issue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of interesting comments all round.. my suggestion of Siculo-Arabic was in response to the suggestion that 'Semitic' was not specific enough. But 'Siculo-Arabic' is too specific?? Not sure I understand why that's the case. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the editors contributing to this discussion would consider replacing 'Semitic' with Phoenician or Punic! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I back "Siculo-Arabic" as the most appropriate. 78.146.110.45 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan brings up a good point that we are simply assuming that the roots are Semitic by virtue of being Arabic when Arabic even in the classical period had words of non-Proto-Semitic origin. Perhaps what we should do is find a reliable source that discusses Il Cantilena and see what it says about the document. Otherwise, the phrase in question is technically OR— Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning[edit]

What is the real meaning? Some kind of love or religious metaphor? --Error (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Il-Kantilena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]