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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There is a group of people who are trying to inflate the number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines. If the reference used is so recent, that does not hold water to me. According to the Spaniards who were in the Philippines during the Spanish era, there were very few Filipinos who spoke Spanish during the Spanish times. I'm wondering why nobody has ever mentioned that. There are too many of those books. I am citing in here some of the books. Please note the year of publication.
Filipinas por España: Narración episódica de la rebelión en el archipiélago filipino, Volume 2 By Emilio Reverter Delmas, Printed Centro editorial de A. Martín, 1897 - Philippines Page 445 The natives have no knowledge of our Spanish language. It's almost the same as it was during Legazpi's time. They barely understand us and we do not understand the natives, not little, not much. The leyes de Indias (Laws on Education) that has been much talked about has never been complied with and they are dead letters. The same as other laws on the teaching of the Spanish language.
El gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas: planteado por el Español ...By Camilo Millan y Vellanue =MANILA Imp de J Lafont Real Manila 2 dup - 1897 pAGE 36 - Just drop by unexpectedly in a school in any town to be convinced that the gap reigns such that very few students understand or can get by with Spanish. Very few students write fairly. Students only know their Cathecisms in their own local language. This will sound sad but it is very true that 9/10 of the children of each town has not set foot not even once in the assigned school where he should have been going
Filipinas y sus habitantesMain Author: González y Martín, R. Published: Béjar, Estab. tip. de la viuda de Aguilar, 1896. Page 98 in spite of the four long centuries that Spain has owned and dominated the Philippines, the elegant and rich Spanish language is barely known and spoken. In the Philippines 8/10 or 9/10 of the natives have no knowledge of Spanish. Without changing the current circumstances in the Archipelago, it will be difficult if not impossible for natives to accept the mother tongue of the country.
Please note that I have no hatred for Spaniards but why inflate the numbers? I took 12 units of Spanish in the Philippines. I stayed in several boarding houses in the Philippines as a college student, i.e., many languages spoken under one roof (Visayan, Pampangan, Bicolano, Ilocano,language in Mindanao, almost all languages in the Philippines), but I know that Spanish as a language stayed inside the classroom, that was it. I tried watching Spanish movies on television when I first got here (USA), could not understand it. How it happened that there are more Spanish speakers now than ever, beats me.IsaLang (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
What is this thing about the Philippines? I've been watching this article for several years, and it never ceases going back and forth between Philippines and no Philippines. Isn't there a way to document once and for all whether there is or is not a significant Spanish-as-a-first-language community in the Philippines in 2014? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Ethnologue there were 2,660 Spanish speakers in the 1990 census, in Manila and in the chavacano speaking areas. Chavacano is a Spanish based creole/mixed language and it has 1,2 million speakers. According to Ethnologue its vocabulary is mostly Spanish and its grammar mostly Tagalog.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been searching myself for information about what remains today of the Spanish-speaking community in the Philippines, with no result. The community did certainly exist at least in Manila, but the most likely fact is that it consisted of elderly people and that it has already disappeared; however I'm not sure. As for Chavacano, it can't be counted as if it were Spanish, it's a distinctly different language. --Jotamar (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be surprising if a community of almost 3000 people dissappeared in the course of only 25 years. No, Chavacano speakers of course cannot be counted as Spanish, but its prevalence shows that Spanish heritage (and linguistic influence) is still vigorous in some areas of the Philippines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Who are those 3000 people of 25 years ago? And if they were old, of course they could have disappeared. --Jotamar (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. 2,660 is not one fourth of one percent, nor a fortieth of one percent, but rather one 376th of 1% (0.00266%) of the total population.Kotabatubara (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Map showing use of "Spanish" and "Castilian" shows the Philippines incorrectly
In the Philippines the Spanish language is very rarely referred to as "Español" (or "Espanyol" in local orthography). That word is used more with national connotations (i.e. "a person/thing from [the Kingdom of] Spain"), rather than ethnic or linguistic. Similar to English "Spaniard" and "Spanish" when used as an adjective.
The most widely preferred term for the Spanish language is "Castillà" ("Kastilâ" in local orthography).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I see recent edits (19:34, 20 December 2014; 19:12, 16 December 2014; and 09:46, 27 November 2014) based on the question of whether /b, d, g/ are realized as fricatives or as approximants, and I suspect it is not all one or all the other. Is there room for both possibilities in this article? Martínez Celdrán famously presented a spectrogram of "abogado" with no visible air friction. Does this mean all half-billion Spanish-speakers outside of the laboratory never pronounce them as fricatives? Navarro Tomás heard fricatives, and Macpherson refers to "audible friction". Did this feature disappear overnight for all speakers? How can the (probable) mixture of realizations be presented to the casual encyclopedia-reader without overwhelming him/her with technicality? Kotabatubara (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The concept of approximant sound was introduced by Peter Ladefoged, if I remember correctly. It's impossible, therefore, that Navarro Tomás used the term in his time. I don't know the Macpherson you mention, sorry. All the literature about Spanish phonology that I've browsed, not just Martínez Celdrán, states that /b d g/ in intervocalic position are approximants in Spanish, except maybe for a few minority dialects. --Jotamar (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to WP. Ok, if you prefer to write fricative or approximant instead of just approximant, I won't change it, even though I think that they can be fricatives only in emphatic contexts. --Jotamar (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit-war over population. We use the same ref for major languages to avoid cherry-picking sources. Also, the Instituto Cervantes grossly overestimates the number of native speakers by denying the existence of native populations. Mexico, e.g., is claimed to be 98% natively Spanish speaking, yet it's also 18% Indian, and "Indian" is defined by native language. (If you're 100% native by blood, but speak Spanish at home, you're "mestizo".) Similarly for Guat, Peru, Bolivia, etc. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually think this estimate is kind of reasonable, for the countries you mention. In Mexico 6% speak indigenous languages, but of those only a very small portion are monolingual speakers of indigenous languages (less than 1% of the population). So if we allow that bilinguals are counted as "native" speakers of Spanish the estimate is about right. I dont see a good argument for why we would assume that people have only one "native language". You have yourself quarreled over the problematic status of the Ethnologues estimate, this one at least is comparing data from the same time period.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
For a quick plausibility check, I added up the population of the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America as given in the Wikipedia article on Latin America (376.5 million). I think it is reasonable to assume that there are certainly no more than 10 million persons who do not speak Spanish as their native language. This leaves us with some 366 million speakers in Latin America. Now add more than 45 million speakers in Spain and more than 35 million in the USA, and the result is not far from the 470 million estimate. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by Native language. There are certainly more than 10 million who speak indigenous languages as one of their native languages (about 40 million indigenous people were reported in 1993, but without defining how many of those speak indigenous languages, AILLA gives a figure of about 15 million speakers of indigenous languages for all of LAtin America). I wish there were reliable data about monolingual speakers if indigenous languages, but in most countries there isnt. In Mexico there is, but I would expect a much lower percentage of indigenous monolinguals in Mexico than in Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
We're not talking monolinguals in NA langs (the figs in the new ref are for mother tongue; fluent non-native speakers are counted separately), and we're not following Ethnologue. It might be different if we dab'd the figure "native and natively bilingual", but as it is that would be OR. Look at the figures: Mexico, only 1.74% native + immigrants; Peru and Guat, only 13%; Bolivia, only 12%; Para, only 30%; and even Equatorial Guinea is 9.5%! Those are not credible figures. In Equatorial Guinea, for ex., only 10 to 15% speak and write it "adequately", due to its use in schools (Gloria Nistal Rosique: El caso del español en Guinea Ecuatorial), so we certainly cannot have 90% with Spanish as their "mother tongue". Perhaps the new ref is a propaganda piece. Regardless, the old ref treats all languages the same, which is why we decided to follow it rather than cherry-picking sources for most major languages. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think bilingual indigenous people are generally counted as native Spanish speakers, and while that is not always correct I think it is probably preferable to the opposite choice (i.e. counting them as L2 speakers by default). I dont know the EG context, but for Mexico I think it is a reasonable estimate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If they have two mother tongues, I would agree. Do they? The failure of the new ref for Eq. Guinea, which is an easy case, suggests it is not reliable. Per the source I ref'd above, el español hablado por la mayoría de la población no es una lengua materna, sino una segunda lengua. I never seen a claim that there are many native speakers, let alone 90%. And if the ref cannot get the easy stuff right, how can we depend on it for the difficult stuff? — kwami (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont know of any useful way to make that judgment. Especially not one that can be statistically operationalized. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Figures from the Cervantes Institute are completely correct
Figures from the Cervantes Institute are completely correct, the number of native speakers of the Spanish language for the year 2014 are 470 million people, it is convenient to update that information. --Spawn3000 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
One thing that is completely certain is that no figure will ever be completely correct.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you come to that conclusion? A quick check reveals the figures are largely bullshit, as noted above. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The Cervantes Institute is quite prestigious and all figures and information published by the Cervantes Institute are detailed studies. --Spawn3000 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The figures are correct, and you know it --Spawn3000 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How would I know that? It seems to me that at least those of Equatorial Guinea are clearly wrong, for Mexico it is arguably a reasonable estimate but only if indigenous bilinguals are all counted as Native spanish speakers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
But you are not expert in the Spanish language, you should allow wise people to create this kind of studies about the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That is correct. The problem here is that the Cervantes institute's claims are contradicted by wise people whose expertise are in regions that are outside their immediate region of expertise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I defend to the Cervantes institute because the institute is respected around the world and in addition the organization publishes excellent information about the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth I think we should probably include the institutes report and its figures in the body of the article as one of the estimates of the total population, but probably not in the info box which would give it undue authorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
It is unfair that you allow the reference of a Swedish encyclopedia which has less authority in the study of the Spanish language in the info box, instead the Cervantes institute is a competent authority in the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I dont think it makes sense to prefer the Swedish encyclopedia over the Cervantes institute. I think we either ought to give the population as a range with sources for the hihest and lowest estimates, or not have a population figure in the info box. Unless we can find a source that is clearly more authoritative than the cervantes institute regarding Spanish.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Institutions such as the Real Academia, Instituto Cervantes and others in the same vein are ideologically slanted. They will try to inflate the number of Spanish speakers as much as they can. --Jotamar (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a section on quotation marks, please? There's nothing at the moment. The section on Guillemet says that in Spanish they're "uncommon in daily usage, but commonly used in publishing", and that's all.
I dont think an entire section on a minor detail of punctuation is warranted per WP:UNDUE. I think that a mos a sentence with a link to the article on variation in the use of quotation marke is sufficient.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)