Talk:Languages of Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spain (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Language, dialect, etc.[edit]

It is perfectly valid to say that Andaluz is a dialect of Spanish. Andaluz is not, however, a dialect of Castilian, which is simply another dialect of Spanish, albeit the politicially dominant one. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

but it is if you say that "Castilian" is the same as "Spanish", which seems the main idea here.-- 03:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In English, to refer to "Castilian" is specifically to refer to the Castilian dialect. The broader language is simply called Spanish. Some of us who are reasonably bilingual may sometimes use "Castilian" to refer to the broader language (especially if we are talking to a Catalan native!), but if that were our intent we would more likely borrow castellano directly; in any case, the use of either "Castilian" or "castellano" in an English-language context to refer to the entire language rather than a dialect is essentially a Spanglish usage. - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The relationship between what we call "Castilian" and "Spanish" is not the same as the relationship between "Tuscan" and "Italian", where Italian is a derivation of Tuscan. Castilian IS Spanish. You can't specify "Castilian dialect" and somehow exclude "Spanish language", as they are the same thing. In fact, you can say Mexican Spanish (et al) is a dialect of Castilian. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You're not right, actually. While castellano, which you are translating as Castilian, is used as a word indicating the Spanish language as a whole, there is also a dialect of Spanish called centronorteno, which is referred to in English as the Castilian Spanish dialect. (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Two names for a same language: "Castilian" and "Spanish"[edit]

Castilian is the historical and autochtonal name of the language, Spanish is mainly a political denomination and can't be more valid than the first one if we follow a linguistical criteria.

I considere that calling "Spanish" to Castilian language is equivalent as calling "Brittish" to English language, or "Roman" to Latin one, justifying it on a legal status or a political or ethno-centristic question. Castilian is not the only language spoken in Spain, nor the only official language, besides, it's not reduced to the current Estate of Spain. It's true, that since centuries ago, it has got generalized into a sort of "lingua franca", in a regional and even international reality, and due to that, the second denomination of "Spanish" started being applied or associated to it, specially from a foreign context, where speakers from other languages tended not to be as familiarized with the reality of the language nor the linguistic or sociologic reality of the region to be awarded of many relevant ethnic and regional overtones.

Castilian started to exist as one else of Iberian Peninsula's derivation from late vulgar Latin, spoken in there, specifically that one spoken among the influencial area of the young counties and soon independent kingdom of Castile, that, compared to the rest of the territory, and the other political and linguistical entities, it was one of smallest and less significative ones. Through Reconquista historical contest, this young reign started expanding, taking advantage from several weakness or confrontation periods among Moor divisions or kingdoms, as well as from his northern christianic neighbours in some conflicts (one of the latest and most decissive ones got translated into the annexation of Leon by that one), and thus it smartly ended up getting to gain some sort of militar and political hegemony as a strong entity around the Peninsula, across the next centuries. This, added to an internationally growing influence derived from the new colonial campaigns in the Americas during beggining of Modern Ages, and a subsequent, decisive ultramarine trade and mercantilist industry, of which it took monopoly or hegemony during a good period of time, increasing the kingdom's richness and strengh; as well an important royal linking through marriage with Aragon crown, important power of Spain in the Age, after Portugal, and main power in Mediterranean, affirmated through several conquests and interventions, and the ultimate fusion de facto of both thrones in the only person of Carlos V (Charles V) of Habsburg, who at same time heritaged throne of Austria and Burgundy and the right to throne of Sacred Germanic-Roman Empire of Germany, can give us a clue of the influence this political entity could achieve far away his frontairs, as something mainly homogeneous. Then conquest of Navarre, a good part of Italy, with Napoli, Sardinia, Malta, Sicilia and Balears, under control, several victories against Ottomans, some strategic positions in northern-western African litoral that supposed an important substract against Algerian piracy, etc.

This considerably elevated international influence of Castilian language, that enjoyed some higher and stronger cultural supports and wider influencial areas than its romance neighbours and status de facto as Lingua Franca, inside and outside the Peninsula, in a context where most of Spain started to be seen as a mostly unified entity, except for Portugal, under the authority of a same dinasty or even monarch. However, not even in these moments "Castilian" denomination, only one logical, usable and possible in Medieval Ages, ceased to be oficially and popularly used during most of Modern one, even when a new "Spanish" one, motivated by a new context and reality, tended to shily share the traditional one. It wouldn't be until uprise of Borbons and their centralistic politics that seeked to abolish most of fueros or regional/autonomical statuses, laws and political realities, and "Spanish" denomination for the language to be increasingly and prominently used as preferent and officialized one. These hasn't got the erased the popular use, maybe implemented with a new synonymous. However, from political institutions, and specially in International contacts, this use has got as the apparently the only convenient or existing one. That doesn't respond to a sociological and linguistical reality, just a politically motivated purpose and justification, reasonibly reinforced during Franco's dictatorship and fascism, and as such, I don't considere excluding one of both possible, existing, vigent and current, nowadays also politically, but mainly linguistically, denominations of this romance language as opposed to the rest of its neighbours, wich don't belong to it, and are considered at same level, could be synonymous of a wide and neutral information, but probably an ideological-political influenced or motivated filter, that only cares to show one privative and non-only actual and existing, misinforming and excluding reality.

Castilian is internationally more widely known as Spanish the same way English could have got known as Brittish if historical events had tend to impose this political reality. That doesn't mean, from a linguistical criteria, we can't be critic with it, but flexible, wide, and open-minded, and defy it or even change it, not only in English, but in any language.

The argument of systematically excluding "Spanish" to the language and "Castilian" to the northern regional dialect doesn't consciously admits but actually tends to prevail and reinforce and justify in names a political Castilian-dominant statu quo, that still makes some conservative and continuist influence at the level of modern Spanish estate, and a strongest one in international context, but its only clear foundation isn't other than a temporal, poor and non-scientifically objective systematic confusion of "political" and "linguistical" frontair, we should be critic with. The fact Borbons dinasty and later Franco's ruling have favoured a centralistic spanishist totalitarist propaganda can't be a valid justification to ban out an alternative, historically homogeneous and currently testimoniated and evidenced denomination, as valid and coherent as "Spanish"'s one, supported by most of the speaker population from a non-monolinguistic society and contest, with several centuries of antiquity and continuity in time.

Signed by Hrodeberth


Galician language has an very important book industry and newspapers, even more thatn the basque language. I modificated the article in that way. -- 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


the opening sentence:

The most prominent of the languages of Spain is, of course, Spanish (which nearly everyone in Spain can speak and is also called in Spain castellano — "Castilian").

the sentence in parenthesis represents an opinion, unless supported by a citation PMoney 09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely a true statement --the Dannycas 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

oh yeah I know it is, but I think the wording just annoys me "which nearly everyone in Spain can speak" - I think I'd rather see it worded differently. I'm also a stickler for citations, I know that Spanish/Castilian is the most prominent language in Spain...but maybe we can get a citation backing that.

This is absurd. The time spent seeking citations for the obvious and universally acknowledged is better spent making actual improvements to articles. I'm all for citing anything where even minor controversy obtains, but this is like having to cite for the fact that the common English-language name for the country is "Spain" or that it is in Western Europe. A total waste of time. This is one of those cases where I cannot imagine that there is a good-faith doubt about the matter; if you want to track down a citation for it yourself, feel free to waste your time; but please don't ask someone else to waste theirs. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made these minimal clarifications, that I considere important from a linguistical criteria, to the opening sentence, in order to be more exact and respectful with the social and linguistical reality: The most prominent of the languages of Spain is Castilian (also called and more internationally known as Spanish), which nearly everyone in Spain can speak and is called in Spain and Hispanic America both español ("Spanish"), and castellano ("Castilian"). I've changed South America for Hispanic America because it is less restrictive and more proper to the geographical and cultural-linguistical reality of that part of the continent: Mexico comprehends a part of North America and Central America, besides, it's not geographically clear where South America starts (unless we stated it as in Panama's Channel), nor where insular Caribbean territories belong to; on the other hand, Brazil and the Guyanas are also part from South America and are not mainly Spanish speaker, added to the fact that, into mainly Spanish speaker countries, there exist indigenous minorities, some of them very prominent, that speaks their own languages, and aren't necesarilly bilingual, as quechuas in Equador, Peru or Bolivia, or ayamars in this last. I prefere to mention it as Hispanic America and not Spanish America, refering to the cultural or linguistical reality, and not to a former colonial/political status. -- Hrodeberth 12:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to talk about the examples of the phonological features of the Andalusian dialect. Except in words as "parece" pronounced "paece", the elision of intervocalic "r" is not common at all. I live in Seville and I have never heard anything as "pa'e" or "ma'e" (whatever ' could mean). The opening of vowels due to the elision of final or pre-consonantal h is limited to the east part of Andalusia, so in Seville "escucha" will never be pronunced ɛˡkuʃa but ehˡkuʃa or ˡkuʃa. The change l>r is common, but r>l is common in Cuba, not in Andalusia. I think that the nasalisation of vowels is completely wrong, nobody here says nothing such as kantã instead of kantan "cantan", obviously, the second "a" in "cantan" is nasalised, but the final "n" is not elided.

JP Madrid, Barcelona, Londres...

I'm seeing the people is saying this opinions are more than likely people that speaks minority cooficial languages.

If we follow the OFICIAL spanish association, rae we can find:

If you see the 4th and 5th point, you see that spanish comes from Castilian, and the rest of languages spoken in Spain have different history, and they are not "Spanish".

To say Castilian=Spanish is correct and if you are from Spain and not extemist you will say that. English=british also. If you know speak english, try to understand scottish language... You'll see (not the scottish accent. The language).

I was living for a long time in Barcelona also and we have to take care about Valencian language. It's not clear that this language is a dialect even in Catalunya. (obviously the catalan extremists don't think so, but standard people have their doubts).

Jorge Pablo ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of Map[edit]

The map added by user:Auslli is clearly of less quality than the previous one. Its only improvement is to separate Asturian and Leonese, which by the way are divided exactly by the administrative border, what a coincidence! I want to hear reasons in favor of the new map before removing it. --Jotamar (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall, and with all due respect, I am worried about this user's additions, which all go in the same direction and are never properly cited. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical map[edit]

The historical map, with changing colors based on the years, gives the impression that Occitan is the main language of southern France (and that Franco-Provençal is dominant in east-central France), which is definitely not true today. Funnyhat (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Spanish" and "Castilian" part deux (or should I say "dos"?)[edit]

I feel like the first sentence...

The languages of Spain are the languages spoken or once spoken in Spain. Romance languages are the most widely spoken in Spain, of which one, Spanish, is the country's official language.

...should establish that Castilian was chosen to be the official "Spanish" language and both names essentially refer to the same thing, so as to reference the existence of other Spanish languages and clear up the fact that Castilian isn't a different language necessarily.

Just like English comes from England (and England is a region of the United Kingdom), Castilian comes from Castile (a region of the Kingdom of Spain).

Thoughts? 2CrudeDudes (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in Names given to the Spanish language. Suggest pipe-link it in to the sentence with a reference to Castilian e.g "of which one, the language originally known as Castilian and now usually referred to as Spanish, is the country's official language." DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How To Speak Spanish[edit]

If you want to know how to speak Spanish ask me and I will anwser.

                                    (Thank you.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 

Possibility of renaming and modifying content[edit]

Hey, I'm just presenting as a possibility the idea of renaming this article something like 'Hispanic languages' or something of the sort, as this would shorten the article title, and would make this page more focused on what it is: a page on the languages of the Iberian peninsula; something as major as a linguistics group could be argued to be of more import notability-wise than the linguistic status of a political entity; the content of the latter could be included on the article for Spain itself. This is just my opinion. Please reply if you have anything to say about this. --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of Spain. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)