Talk:Leonese dialect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Endangered languages  
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles related to endangered languages. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
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.
 

Merge proposal[edit]

Since both languages are the same and the Asturian article is much bigger, I think someone should merge this one into the other and convert it into a redirect. Charles Dexter Ward 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly the same[edit]

Leonese language is not exactly the same that asturian language, and it can be considered as a different idiom. --Galician 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on which side of the stupid and highly politicised leonese vs. asturleonese polemic you position yourself. The fact is that this article is quite biased and lacks mayor significant sources for its claims. And Idiom, amigo mío, means something quite different than "idioma" in English. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.158.57.144 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper English[edit]

The following heading does not make sense: "Adult people More than 104 persons in five levels studies Leonese Language in 2008-2009 course for adult people in the official courses that developes the Leonese City Council Department for Leonese Culture[7]". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.156.24 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvement recommendations[edit]

Auslli asked me to give some advice on how to improve the quality this article, so I'll list a few things that need to be amended:

  • Overall, the article needs to adhere closer to the language template. The template contains almost all of the standardized headings that can house most, if not all, information necessary for a good quality language article. It also has useful recommendations on what to include under each heading.
  • There is much content here that isn't particularly relevant to a language article or that is bordering the trivial. Just about all of the information about Leonese Language Day doesn't belong here. There's already a separate article for this topic and could be summarized in a sentence or two. Keep in mind that the article is primarily about describing the specific of the language itself, its history, geographic distribution, grammar, relation to other languages, etc. Political campaigns and other policies relevant to the language should be mentioned, but not focused on excessively.
  • Lists and tables of various translated words should not be included unless they have a specific purpose. Simple glossaries are actively discouraged by WP:LANG and Wikipedia policy in general.
  • The quality of language in the article needs to be improved. Currently it's rather repetitive, stilted and contains a lot of errors in the spelling and grammar.
  • The article could use more sources, if possible in English. A general reference on Leonese in particular would be very useful. Citations also need to be standardized. I recommend consulting WP:CITE for further guidance.

Peter Isotalo 15:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've strated with the grammar.Regards.--Auslli (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is something more urgent than all that. The article gives a completely misleading idea about the current situation of the language. You could end up thinking that Leonese is spoken on a daily basis in all of the provinces of León, Zamora and Salamanca, or at least in all the rural areas. Of course that is not true.

The page should define very clearly what is the real current extension of the language, how it is difficult to draw the limits with both Spanish and Galician, let alone Asturian, and that Leonese might have been spoken in the past in wide areas where it is not spoken any more by anyone. --Jotamar (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

...no answers in 3 weeks... how sad. --Jotamar (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard of English seriously needs to be looked at in this article, I have just stumbled upon an appalling sentence: PuntuLLI Association develops the fight...There are more than 800 signers and 44 organisations collaborating with it. In addition to the Leon City Council, which uses Leonese in its web site, so other associations, organisations or enterprises use the language in their web sites too. I can rewrite this from the Spanish page, or indeed simply rewrite this passage directly in English if nobody objects. Angryafghan (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Léon[edit]

Please don't reinsert the Kingdom of Léon as a region where Leonese is spoken. When an article is about a living language that part of the infobox is intended for regions where a language is currently spoken.

Peter Isotalo 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The current Kingdom of León are the Spanish provinces of León, Zamora and Salamanca, in the Autonomous Community of Castile AND León, and there is where Leonese language is spoken.
Stop inventing facts Auslli, is the only think you do in this article: you use terms like "actual" in the wrong way, you persist in use "Llión" in stead of "León", the only valid name for the city. You should know that León city isn't part of the native region where the language is spoken. So, stop making leonesist campaing in this article, because as we've seen, is your only interest: defend that the Kingdom of León still exists is like say that English language is spoken in the British Empire, and as we all know, that is not true. The "II Estudiu Sociolingüisticu de Lleón" is not a valid reference. See this and then edit. Regards Rastrojo (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If you keep trying to impose your personal point if view, you would be banned. Please desist.--Undersucker (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop trying to put your only political point of view. I'm a linguistic, not a politic campaigner like you show in your own page. What you have said is just your point of view.--Auslli (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Such an accurate answer... Rastrojo (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

It seems curious to me see what's happening in this article. Auslli, and specially Undersucker and Bilgelik only appear to revert me. I believe that my editions respect the Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia. There's no reason to keep the term "Kingdom of León" in the article, I've explained it a couple of lines up. So, I think that we should protect this article from disruptive edits that only pretend to impose the terms Llión, Kingdom of León and the number of speakers, absolutely invented. Regards. Rastrojo (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any edit warring in nearly 24 hours, so I don't think protection is necessary at this point. Still, all editors should discuss the matter here and hopefully come up with a solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of speakers[edit]

The sociolinguistic study of Leon never talk it about numbers of speakers of language leonés. The respondents spoke about traditional language, which many respondents do not identify with the Leonese language. Therefore, from this study can not get the number of speakers of language leonés. I have the study in my power. (Sorry for my English)--FCPB (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I already said to you in a discussion on the Spanish entry, there are other philologist whose papers explicitely support the figure of 50.000 Leonese speakers. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed article[edit]

I wonder how the works by Menendez Pidal on the whole asturleonese lingüistic dominion (what he called "leonese diactect") and other works that use the term "leonese" in the same way ("dialectos leoneses") may be used to define a "language" that, in the sense that Menendez Pidal used, also applied to the languages spoken in Asturias. The article is definitely misleading. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Leonese is a language, and that's like it's recognized at least in this wikipedia. It's a part of Wikiproject Languages where some wikipedians are working on it, like you can see there.--Auslli (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question... Rastrojo (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in the article[edit]

It has been proved that Auslli is an admin of Llionpedia, a Leonese encyclopedia with a Leonesist Point of View. There are no more doubts about his political inclinations, which are also supported by Undersucker. So, this revisions should be kept out of the article. The NPOV should be saved. Regards. Rastrojo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is free of political inclinations, but I think Rastrojo ist the less indicated to talk about ist, being him a supporter of an imaginary Castilian state. I think we are seeing a well organized campaign against a minority language. Sad. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Any proof of your statements? Rastrojo (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of politized Spaniards. Please learn to be more tolerant with other opinions. You request proofs? Go to you user site at the Spanish (and not Castilian) wikipedia and re-read your statements. It is amazing that such a political motivated user like you, obviously active in the Castilian independentist movement, has become librarian in the Spanish wiki.--Eldrewitsch (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So what? Rastrojo (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So "nada amigo", as you would say. I am not going to argue with you. You Spaniards are so agressive when defending your own political point of view that it is of no use to debate with you. No wonder you hate yourselves so much. --88.14.36.248 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I find Rastrojo's reverts fair overall. The mention of the Leonese kingdom, disappeared 7 centuries ago, is out of place; to use the name "Llión" for a city where nobody uses that name is ridiculous too. --Jotamar (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would be very interesting to know what is the connection between users Auslli, Eldrewitsch and Undersucker... --Jotamar (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the total amount of speakers without politics[edit]

Rastrojo has erased the given total amount of Leonese speakers without apparent reason. I do not care about politics, I am not a Spaniard and I don't like nationalism neither Spanish nor Castilian, Leonese or whatsoever, so please be fair and refer to philological studies in this discussion. I thank you in advance. My references for 50.000 speakers are:

  • Sánchez Prieto, R. (2008): "La elaboración y aceptación de una norma lingüística en comunidades dialectalmente divididas: el caso del leonés y del frisio del norte". In: Sánchez Prieto, R./ Veith, D./ Martínez Areta, M. (ed.): Mikroglottika Yearbook 2008. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

If you cannot present studies published by academicians in national or international publications, I suggest that we all accept the figure of 50.000 speakers. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As nobody has answered for three days I will add the data. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


The study García Arias, J.L./ González Riaño, J.A. (2008): II Estudiu sociollingüísticu de Lleón. Identidá, conciencia d'usu y actitúes llingüístiques de la población lleonesa. Oviedo : ALLA. says nothing about number of speakers of Leonese.
Ask quote (and page number to which it belongs).--FCPB (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? You obviously do not have read the study. But even if you don't, you can find references to this study and to the given figure in the press [1]. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Politized article[edit]

This article is a copy of this politized pseudo-wikipedia: http://www.llinguallionesa.net/index.php/Llingua_Ll%C3%AFonesa --Karkeixa (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


If you want an objetive and not politized article of the real wikipedia see this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_leones --Karkeixa (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree, but the odds of coming across an editor of English Wikipedia who feels competent to the task of cleaning this one up or who has the time to translate the Spanish article is low. If you can spare the effort... Srnec (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a hard work... and I don't speak english well... It takes time --Karkeixa (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Changes[edit]

  • The number of speakers of sánchez Prieto, R. (2008): "La elaboración y aceptación de una norma lingüística en comunidades dialectalmente divididas: el caso del leonés y del frisio del norte" is based on this other sociolingüistic book: Xosé Antón González Riaño y Xosé Lluis García Arias. II Estudiu sociollingüísticu de Lleón (Identidá, conciencia d'usu y actitúes llingüístiques de la población lleonesa). Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.

To Morteira user[edit]

Academia de la Llingua Asturiana is an official organism and Romania Minor is a reputed organization. You just want to keep your politized point of view. The linguistic reality in Spain is another. Stop being vandalize, please! --Karkeixa (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Academia de la Llingua Asturiana has no competences in Castile and León, but the Report of The Asturian Language speaks about all the asturleonese linguistic domain. And in this linguistic domain included the leonese language. --Karkeixa (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation and unilateral point of view[edit]

This article is being written from the unique perspective of the political organization Conceyu Xoven. The user Auslli was unmasked in the spanish wikipedia. He drafted the spanish article with political interests and we had to rewrite the article objectively. Nobody will to do anything to correct and depoliticize the english article? --Karkeixa (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing here could be against the policy of good faith. --Auslli (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eldrewitsch. -- Luk talk 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have read. Is an attack against my because i am the only one who is arguing. --Karkeixa (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
...and, Rastrojo is an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia.--Karkeixa (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The contributions that i am making in the article are argued from trustworthy and prestigious sources (philologists and linguists). I don't know what is the problem for be unable to edit in this article. --Karkeixa (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you see the contributions (all the contributions are made the same day) of the user Stywerdoff you will check that his contributions are ridiculous and random. ¿Who's the sockpuppet? --Karkeixa (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Translation in progress[edit]

User Auslli was expulsed in italian, german and Spanish wiki. Link--> http://diariodeleon.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=486378 (the article in the news says "English wiki", but it's a typographical error; it must say "Spanish wiki"). In Spanish wiki, they reverted all editions made for Auslli, Xairu and Sprawi; and they have corrected the article, so it's a good idea translate it from Spanish now. --Paladinex (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin endings[edit]

Is there any particular reason why many of the Latin words in the comparative table take the accusative case? Would it not be more appropriate to use the nominative? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that, in western Romance languages, Latin accusative is the form from which modern words derive. --Jotamar (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Really? This is news to me. The comparative table does not seem to support that at all, either... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact it is rather obvious. How else can the plurals in -s be explained? --Jotamar (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For some words, perhaps. But you cannot present the accusative as being the same as the nominative, as was implied by the table. I have added the same parentheses that are used in the corresponding Spanish article, which makes it less misleading, in my opinion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Undoing edits of 20 July 2011 relating to relationship to Portuguese[edit]

User Benwing inserted a statement into at least two articles about Astur-Leonese languages (this one and Leonese language) falsely implying that these languages genetically descend from a Portuguese node. This contradicts the established view. The established view is elaborated in various Wikipedia articles on Astur-Leonese languages: western Romance is a dialect continuum with many members, and most of the local vernaculars are not "basilects" of Spanish, Portuguese, or French. Within Iberian Romance, Leonese, Asturias, and Aragonese are not variants of Spanish, but rather Spanish is of comparable rank to them. Again, this has all been articulated in other Wikipedia articles. More particularly, Leonese is not a variety of Portuguese any more than of Spanish. Therefore, user Benwing is in error to choose wording, "here are historical traits which link (Mirandese, Leonese) to Portuguese rather than to Spanish". The key insight is that in western Romance phonology, at least in consonants, Castilian is highly divergent from all the others. The inventory and distribution of consonants in Leonese resemble the Portuguese more than the nearly all the western Romance dialects from Belgium to Lisbon resemble one another closely in these regards. Dale Chock (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Once you have stated in the page that Leonese is not anyone's basilect, it makes sense to see its connections to the neighbouring linguistic varieties, as it is not an isolated variety either. Arranging the linguistic features according to which other varieties share them is helpful for the reader. Remember there's the tree model but also the wave model. Jotamar (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonese vs Astur-Leonese[edit]

For anyone with updated information about the languages in Spain, it's obvious that the ambiguity Leonese vs Astur-Leonese does no longer exist. The term Leonese is not used nowadays for the linguistic varieties in Asturias, Cantabria or even in Mirando do Douro. Rewording the heading as if the ambiguity still existed really messes up the page. Jotamar (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point--by the way, you seem to mean "the lead" where you said "the heading". But then, this article needs far more serious change than what you refer to. After all, the whole article expresses the idea of using "Leonese" to mean "Asturian-Leonese". Half of the information in this article belongs properly to the article on Asturian-Leonese. Dale Chock (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't express my idea well. It's obvious that this page was created to describe the vernaculars in León (provinces of León Zamora and Salamanca), otherwise there wouldn't be a Astur-Leonese languages page nor a Asturian language page. Therefore any ambiguity must be resolved by hatnotes and not inside the page body. Jotamar (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename as "Leonese dialects"[edit]

There seems to be no belief among the specialists that the dialects of Leonese constitute a distinct language from Asturian. Dale Chock (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I wouldn't mind but I guess some editors might oppose the idea as they regard Leonese as an identity marker for a certain territory (old province of León, that is, present provinces of León, Zamora and Salamanca). Jotamar (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to Llionpedia[edit]

I was surprised to find no external link to Llionpedia, and added one. Was this there before, and removed because of some dispute? I assume that Llionpedia was started in part because Leonese and Asturian were not considered distinct languages by our standards, but two communities each wanted their own reference work... Nevertheless, the site was set up and has grown significantly; it is certainly one of the significant collections of Leonese writing online. – SJ + 23:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Last editions by Sifedyx[edit]

Sorry for reverting in bulk all the editions by Sifedyx, but they included removing references and unilaterally deciding that Salamanca should be left out. Some previous discussion is needed. Jotamar (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

riu erga[edit]

i wondered, what does the sign in the picture say? it translates as river jargon, but what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.167.22.90 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The sign indicates the presence of a river named Jerga (and apparently, Xerga in Leonese). It needn't have any connection with the Spanish word jerga (jargon). Jotamar (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Leonese in narrow or broader sence[edit]

Could some one please tell me whether in the Linguistic Characteristics section are discussed the characteristics of the whole Asturleonese areal or only of Leones in narrow sence (the dialects spoken in Leon)? Thanks in advance. --Мико (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The page was intended to deal just with the dialects in León (including Zamora and Salamanca), but there have been some strange changes in Astur-Leonese languages and now I'm not sure about what is intended. Jotamar (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Pretty clear there is no agreement here. Possibly a wider issue that needs further discussion at some sort of RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Leonese dialectLeonese languageUser:Kwamikagami asked me :: "Hi. Could you restore Leonese? It's a dialect per our sources. Thanks.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Article editor and Kwamikagami: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the sources indeed call it a dialect, it is completely unacceptable for us to call it a language. That's both original research and (at least indirect) reference falsification. Peter238 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We also have Astur-Leonese languages, Asturian language, Mirandese language, and Extremaduran language, but Cantabrian dialect. These should be consistent, either Astur-Leonese language with the various member dialects, or a group of languages with member languages (as we have it now, except for Cantabrian). --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (keep at 'dialect') According to Glottolog, based on Agard (1984), as well as Ethnologue, Leonese is a dialect of Asturian (also known as 'Leonese'). Mirandese and Extremaduran are separate languages. — kwami (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this article should remain at the status quo ante (Leonese dialect) per reasons given by kwami and Peter238. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't believe I am the only one stating that the difference between language and dialect is meaningless in modern linguistics. The most neutral wording would be Leonese linguistic varieties or something to that effect, but it's obvious to me that other editors won't be for it, so I will just follow the discussion from the curb. --Jotamar (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Leonese dialectLeonese language per reasons by JorisvS. --Article editor (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.