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 Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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 substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Spanish immigration to Cuba: Christopher Columbus, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Spanish people, VDM Publishing HouseCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Click the "show" link above for further details.
I don't know who added this parenthesis. I have looked up the source and it says nothing specific about the proto-castilian spoken in northern Spain being a "German-influenced" romance language. Early forms of Spanish had many influences, notably Arabic, but also others such as Celti-iberian, etruscan, basque, greek, gothic (the latter being Germanic) and probably a long etc... Same with all languages. Gothic influence is quite limited since the number of Visigoths who came to Spain were small and had already been significantly romanized prior to their arrival. The geographic origin of modern Spanish is a matter of dispute but that parenthesis is nonesensical. Northern dialects did not have more "germanic influence" than the Mozarabic dialect of Toledo particularly since the Visigothic capital was in Toledo. The limited germanic influence that all Romance dialects in modern Spain had was probably the same across all regions, except perhaps the far South East where the Visigoths were present only briefly due to lingering Byzantine rule.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The statement in parenthesis does not say "German", it says "Germanic". There is, of course, a large difference between the two. The "A History of the Spanish Language", pp,51, 173, 263 source cited has plenty to say on the subject. The "proto-castilian spoken in northern Spain" is never mentioned and serves only to side-step the discussion.
Section 1.3.1 ("The Visigoths") mentions introduction of noun-declensions and the suffix -engo (germanic '-ing') and the possible introduction of suffixes "-ez" and "-oz" in names (specifically patronyms).
Section 4.5 ("germanic borrowing")
So, again, you ask we ignore the source and instead rely on your say-so on the matter. I find it disappointing that I have to point out, again. Kleuske (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is wide consensus in works about the history of Spanish about this: the Germanic influence is very small if any. I've read Penny and I don't think his opinion is different. The mention of Germanic influence here is absolutely misleading. In an extensive work about Spanish, some links with Germanic will appear here and there, as with many other languages or linguistic groups: that means next to nothing. --Jotamar (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Kleuske I agree with Jotamar. Basque and Celitberian influence is perhaps worth mentioning, the former, by what I remember is responsible for the "f" disappearing and being substituted for the silent "h" and words as common as "izquierda" are of basque origin. Germanic languages have had negligble influence on the language. Since the word "pre-roman" includes both basque and other, I am changing one for the other. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Kleuske Just another point, you can find sources which will discuss all sorts of influence on Spanish: Greek, Romani, Sanskrit, French, Italian, Etruscan, Iberian, English, Hebrew, Phoenician, Celtic, Nahuatl and a long etc... It is up to us to make sure such sources are not used incorrectly to attempt to push a misleading POV, which is what has been done here. Removing the source and statement is certainly a wiser course of action than having to make the point with a dozen other sources which discuss other influences on early Spanish. Furthermore, sources do exist which clearly state how minor an influence gothic had on Spanish considering the few centuries they ruled the country. It is actually surprising how limited it is. It is not clear -ez is of Gothic origin (many theories propose a basque or latin origin) and native Spanish speakers know how rare the suffix -engo is. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Kleuske And finally, (this is particularly annoying considering how insistently you have been edit warring on this topic) the source you provide says literally on page 14 "The influence exercised by Visigothic on the latin of Spain was therefore small. Apart from a number of lexical loans, such influence is limited to a few morphological features."Asilah1981 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Morphology is an important part of grammar, but Jotamar and you are right that many more influences exist and germanic is not a bit part of it. Since the consensus seems to be to omit it, i will drop the proverbial stick and admit that I stand corrected on that. Given your own style of discussion, though, you own at least 50% of the "editwar". Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Kleuske Yes I most certainly do, but I am sure from now on we will keep it civil. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)