Talk:Italo-Western languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Stub created from the list on the "Most Requested Articles" page. Xaa 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


This article is contradicted by , specifically in its grouping of Dalmatian with Italian rather than Romanian. Other sources in my experience tend to agree with the image rather than with this article. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

strong contradiction![edit]

I came here from the article "Italian language". This is the sentence I was reading:

"Standard Italian [...] is somewhat intermediate between the Italo-Dalmatian languages of the South and the Gallo-Romance Northern Italian languages."

The link "Italo-Dalmatian languages" send me here. In this articol I learn that Italo-Western languages are all Romamces languages except Romanian and Sardinian. But I was reading "Italo-Dalmatian languages of the South[ern Italy]" since I thought Southern Italian are Eastern like extint Dalmatian! In the chart one more version: Dalmatian =East and Italian dialect(???) =West. It's crazy!

This confusing classification seems it would not say the truth: North-Italian =West, strictly relative with French, Occitan and Catalan (this is an evidence) and South-Italian =East, with no strict relatives.

Thanks for all --Cit vësco (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ItaloRomance and Dalmatian subgroups of ItaloDalmatian[edit]

I think both subgroups should be added in the article.--Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC).


That language is just under Indo-European

   * Italic
         o Romance
               + Italo-Western
                     # Western
                           * Gallo-Iberian
                                 o Ibero-Romance
                                       + East-Iberian
                                             # Catalan, Valencian

I'll delete it from


   * Italic
         o Romance
               + Italo-Western
                     # Western
                           * Gallo-Iberian
                                 o Gallo-Romance
                                       + Occitano-Romance
                                             # Catalan

Helmoony (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop JorisvS! You are not answering my queries![edit]

Why have you deleted the following User:JorisvS?



Northern Italian[edit]

The Gallo-Italic languages and the Venetian language are considered to be Northern dialects of the Italian language,(Carlo Tagliavini, Le origni delle lingue neolatine, Bologna, Pàtron, 19726, p. 396. «Col nome di dialetti settentrionali o alto-italiani intendiamo i dialetti gallo-italici, il Veneto e l'Istriano [lege: Istriot language].») but they are also considered to be Western Romance languages.

  • The Gallo-Italic languages of Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian, Lombard and Piedmontese.
  • The Venetian language. Should not be included in Gallo-Italic.(Lorenzo Renzi, Nuova introduzione alla filologia romanza, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1994, p. 176 «I dialetti settentrionali formano un blocco abbastanza compatto con molti tratti comuni che li accostano, oltre che tra loro, qualche volta anche alla parlate cosiddette ladine e alle lingue galloromanze [...] Alcuni fenomeni morfologici innovativi sono pure abbastanza largamente comuni, come la doppia serie pronominale soggetto (non sempre in tutte le persone)[...] Ma più spesso il veneto si distacca dal gruppo, lasciando così da una parte tutti gli altri dialetti, detti gallo-italici.)
  • The Istriot language, see Dalmation Romance.

1. What is wrong with my references?

2. You have not answered my points on Talk:Italo-Dalmatian_languages. When are you going to do that? Stop editing until you do! Answer them!

3. Gallo-Italic might be mentioned as Gallo-Romance, but it is considered also considered as Italian Romance. It is important to point that out!

4. What on earth has happened to Venetian? Are you seriously suggesting it is not Italo-Western?!

5. Istriot is considered as a Northern dialect, along with Gallo-Italic and Venetian. Look at my references! Why not explain that!?

Please stop! --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You should not accuse me of vandalism, look at its definition: WP:Vandalism. And some patience would also be appreciated, it tend to edit while formulating my answers on talk pages. Firstly, they are not dialects, not in any linguistic sense possible! How often must you hear that? I've answered multiple times, but you seem not to get it (or want to get it?). As for Venetian, I made a simple mistake there, it has been restored. What do you mean about Istriot? Could you explain that better? --JorisvS (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't you get it into your head that the Gallo-Italic languages and Venetian are box considered both Western Romance and Italo-Romance! Just look at the articles, they can be seen as either. And the Northern Italian Dialects is a well recognised clade of Italo-Romance languages! Look at any source of mine. Look at the info box at the bottom of the article. Why do you introduce all these errors? Why do you never cite sources?
Putting the Venetian language just back and describing it as sometimes Gallo_italic and sometimes Italo-romance is wrong. It can be considered as gallo-italic, an independant western romance language or Italian Romance! --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
So anyone who disagrees with you is either a vandal or ignorant and should stop editing pages that you are interested in, right? The Dissident Aggressor 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop making personal attacks. And explain your recent edits despite saying "I don't know crap about languages." --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. The Dissident Aggressor 23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen "Northern Italian" as a clade of Romance languages, except in your stories. Any 'source' that's in that section is at best unverifiable for others. It is possible that Venetian is sometimes considered separate (alongside Istriot or not) from both Gallo-Italic and Italo-Dalmatian, but we can only add it as possibly a separate branch when a source that says so surfaces. --JorisvS (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Read this then: . It uses the references listed here: . And look at the articles on Gallo-Italic and Venetian language: both are described as being considered either as Western Romance and Italian Romance. Also read and look at the info box. Remember: Italo-dalmatian = Italian romance plus dalmatian romance!
Various sources and bibliography.
Venetian language
Carlo Tagliavini, Le origni delle lingue neolatine, Bologna, Pàtron, 19726, p. 396.
--Mrjulesd (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You can't answer my objections/responses by spewing templates and quotes. You must make an actual argument, which you may then support by linking to a source. At Talk:Italo-Dalmatian languages you've tried to argue that Gallo-Italic should also belong to Italian Romance, yet here you seem to want to separate them. Those 'sources' you've spewed talk about 'dialects of Italian', which these regional languages are blatantly not (again, in any honest linguistic sense possible), or 'Northern Italian language' (singular), which, given the differences between the varieties in the north, is equally blatantly not possible. The only actual possibility, given the differences, is one or more clusters of languages, not a bunch of dialects, nor a singular language.
Now, let's continue with their actual classification. North or south of the La Spezia–Rimini Line does make a big difference, but when arguing for a 'Northern Italian' clade, one cannot only look at Italy, one also has to look outside Italy. Gallo-Romance clade includes a separate branches, Gallo-Romance proper (langues d'oïl and Franco-Provençal), Gallo-Italic, Rhaeto-Romance, and possibly Occitano-Romance and Venetian. If arguing for a 'Northern Italian' clade, one must successfully argue that more than one of these groups are more closely related to each other than to all the rest of Gallo-Romance. You have so far failed to do that. --JorisvS (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I know I should assume good faith, but I am finding it increasingly difficult. You said "You can't answer my objections/responses by spewing templates and quotes" then how on earth can I persuade you? What is wrong with my sources? Why have you never quoted sources to support your arguments? I find your arguments incomprehensible.
Firstly, I have explained in great length that the Gallo-Italic and Venetian languages are sometimes considered to be Western Romance, and sometimes Italian Romance. What on earth is wrong with this assertion? I have provided numerous sources, can you perhaps quote one source that backs up your arguments? --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
By using arguments! (I already said so) Try logical, coherent statements. Instead of requiring of me to figure out what you want to tell me, tell it to me. If you read through what I've said, you'll see that I have described distinct problems with those sources. Try to understand my objections against those sources, only then can this discussion progress any further. And if there is something you don't understand about what I said, ask me about it.
Try to explain what that means exactly. What does 'sometimes' mean here, by whom? How does that relate to the existence of Italo-Dalmatian, which is, after all, a clade one step higher than Italo-Romance? How does it relate to the claim that these are Gallo-Romance? --JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You said "Instead of requiring of me to figure out what you want to tell me, tell it to me." Many sources support the idea that both Gallo-Italic and Venetian are sometimes classified as Italian Romance. If you can't see this in the references, I give up. They give ample evidence for this assertion.
You said "you'll see that I have described distinct problems with those sources." you really think you know better than them? What sources support your views? You've given me none.
You said "What does 'sometimes' mean here, by whom?" Read the reference. They'll explain.
You said "How does that relate to the existence of Italo-Dalmatian, which is, after all, a clade one step higher than Italo-Romance?" Italo-Dalmatian = Italian Romance plus Dalmatian.
You said "How does it relate to the claim that these are Gallo-Romance?" different sources! Read the quotes properly, look at the articles, and think. I'm sorry if you are confused by all this , but maybe you should ask someone to explain it?
Here is the essence of the above quotes. If you want the entire quotes, look above.
More sources
This is getting ridiculous. I don't know if I will reply in future, my patience is wearing thin. I know I should assume good faith, but it is difficult. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Making the argument yourself means exactly not saying "If you can't see this in the references". Likewise, "Read the reference" and "different sources! Read the quotes properly, look at the articles, and think" is not helping. This is requiring of me to go through everything and hoping I come to see it your way. You have to say what you want me to know.
This I can respond to: "Italo-Dalmatian = Italian Romance plus Dalmatian". That means that Gallo-Italic's inclusion in Italo-Romance makes it simply inconsistent with it being Gallo-Romance.
These quotes are much better. The first two quotes are quite useful, these are good for referencing the statements about Gallo-Italic and Venetian as I've put them in this article. The third one does not mean anything to me (maybe you could explain it?). The fourth one contains a rather strong statement, but also hinges on what he considers "Northern Italian" and how he sees it; e.g. as a group when looking only at Italy or not. The last quote discredits itself by talking about "Italian dialects", which all these regional languages are blatantly not and also makes it clear that it looks only at Italy (which is useless for cladistics); moreover, it ignores Rhaeto-Romance. --JorisvS (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to spoon-feed you. It would be ridiculous to do so on the Talk page for Italo-Western, it should not be for introductionary linguistics. Maybe on your or my talk page, but not here. By I will say this much: if you having difficulty with my sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article at this point. If you want to discuss your points further, I am happy to do so on my or your talk page. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Making your arguments yourself and saying the things you want to tell me yourself is not spoon-feeding, its discussing. We are discussing this topic to figure out how to improve this article. That's exactly what this talk page is for. Can we now start to have an actual discussion or do you not really want to discuss this is issue (which wouldn't be good for the article). --JorisvS (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's a good point - there really hasn't been any discussion. I've seen walls of text thrown around, accusations of vandalism and incompetence, acts of passive aggression and dismissal instead. The Dissident Aggressor 22:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)