Talk:Erromintxela language

Core vocab

There doesn't seem to be any Basque in the vocabulary so far, core or otherwise (cf the Romani forms). The only possible contender so far is hiretzat which contains the root hi "you (familiar)". Akerbeltz (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From appearances, based on the very limited information presented here, this looks like a good candidate for mixed language status. Mixed languages are very rare, so the real determining factor will be the amount of grammatical simplification (if any) that has occurred. If we see massive grammatical simplification, then it's probably best to call this a creole. But if the Basque grammar is fairly intact, then this may be a mixed language. (Taivo (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

This language seems to have escaped general knowledge because the research is being published in Basque. Not too many linguists read Basque. It deserves its own ISO 639-3 identifier, however. (Taivo (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

They only started really researching it recently I guess. The grammar seems very intact, I'll be adding more stuff through the day, bear with me. Mixed language sounds like a good call. Changing it to mixed language for now. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken the verb forms from the poem. Probably going to add the remaining vocabulary items too. I'm thinking of writing to the publishers to ask them if we can quote the full poem, it's the only coherent text that seems to be in publication at the moment. Accordong to one article, they're hoping to publish more material soon though. I've never filled in an ISO form... you got any experience in that? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles containing language text

Does anyone else find that link at the bottom confusing? According to the page that doesn't exist the page doesn't exist yet it has content. Where did this come from anyway, I can't seem to get rid of it. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Caló

Some of the words have clear Caló parallels. I'm thinking of chaval, acay, queli, chorar,... Would a Caló column help? Or is it enough with a Romany one? --Error (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, given they both have their origins in a Roma language that's not surprising. A bit like Spanish and Portuguese having shared terms due to their origins in vulgar Latin. I think it might make the table somewhat messy if we add another column. But we could add a short paragraph under Linguistic Features along the lines of: The research by Muñoz and Lopez de Mungia has confirmed that Erromintxela is not derived from Caló, the Spanish-Romani mixed language spoken in Spain. Instead, it is based on Kalderash Romani and the Basque language. Since both language nonetheless are ultimately derived from the same Romani root, there are some words in both languages which are very similar to each other such as txora{tu}/chor{ar} etc. What do you think? Possibly even a small table in that section. Does Caló have a standard spelling? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. The table is not "small". Reduce it as you please. My Caló does not go very far. It's mostly Spanish slang that I know has Caló origin. --Error (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me though I think we should remove those where we cannot cite the Romani root, since we refer to common origin in the table? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Caló stuff is (currently) unref'd and I'm toying with trying to get this to GA maybe. I have a source here, the vocabulario español-gitano which cites a lot of spanish Caló forms, but not all in our current table, would you object to me changing some of the examples so I can ref them all? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with Caló dictionaries. I heard that some of them are not trustworthy. Change the examples if you find something better. --Error (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Buhameak

Is there some relation between the buhameak/Caldereros costumes worn in one of the Donostia festivals and the Erromintxela Gipsies or are they inspired in another group? --Error (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Caldereros is presumably "kettle people", another common term in Europe for gypsies in general. The problem is that buhameak/ijitoak is non-specific in Basque in the sense it does not separate Erromintxela speaking people from Caló speaking people. Until the Erromintxela are better researched, I don't think we will be able to say. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah, found someone who researched this. I'll add it. Which article to though... it's not really a language related thing. Perhaps to the festival section? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaskarots

I dont have time to talk about this right now, maybe next week. (Au XVII ième siècle, les Kaskarots étaient des bohémiens chassés d'Espagne et du Portugal. Il se sont implantés à St Jean de Luz et à Ciboure profitant du déclin des deux villes.) That reminds me my childhood, time flies. --Zorion (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Incidentally, not that I'm bothered but Baudrimont consitently spells Bohémiens and Pay Basque with capitals, which is what I wrote them that way. But it doesn't matter I guess. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Created Cascarots, feel free to chip in! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Slang

Has Erromintxela contributed to Basque slang in some degree? Caló is the source of a lot of Spanish slang. I remember reading that najel dagit is a Basque (Biscayne?) equivalent of the Caló/Spanish slang me najo ("I leave"). --Error (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible - but I've not come across anything in the somewhat sparse literature. Can you remember where you read that? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Orotariko, najel egin is attested as gitano for "run away"; so najel dagit would simply be a conjugated form of that. All we need now is an attestation of it in a non-Erromintxela context. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erromintxela/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made some minor copy-edits; the prose could do with improvement, perhaps some shorter sentences, clearer writing. Although wikilinked some terms such as endonym, bertsolaritza, pelota could bear with some explanation. Y

   The Lead does not comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD. It should be a succinct summary of the whole article. The prose parts, that is. Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The artcile is suitably referenced and I assume good faith for all print sources. All online sources are WP:RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please go over the prose and seek to clarify and improve the prose. Check that sentences are not overlong, introduce specialist words with explanations, even if wikilinked. Check that the prose flows smoothly.

   Please rewrite the lead to summarise the article. Anything in the lead should be in the artcle in expanded form.

   On hold for seven days to allow improvements to be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

   OK, I think this now sufficiently improved to meet the GA criteria. If you wish to expand the article further consider splitting off the linguistic features into a sub article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the initial appraisal, I'll get to it straight away! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm copy editing bit by bit.

"While the Erromintxela identify themselves as ijitoak ..." Do they call themselves ijitoak when speaking Basque, and erromintxela when speaking that? The article does not make it clear. kwami (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I could have put that better - what that means is that they identify themselves as Erromintxela (both ethnically and linguistically) but within the wider scope of the Roma world as being ijitioak in the wider sense, but within the ijitioak as separate from the Caló. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean they call themselves both Erromitxela and Ijitioak when speaking E? When speaking Basque?

And the "earliest research"--is that the earliest attestation of the language, or just the earliest substantive description of it?

I'm removing a lot of links. We normally only link the first mention of a word, unless (as in the case of Caló) a later mention may be more likely to cause questions. But I haven't bothered to go back and linked the initial use when I delete latter uses, so 'morphology' for example I think is now unlinked.

I'm adding some info I'm not sure of, for clarity of the text, and am tagging it as 'dubious'. You might need to delete or modify it.

The phoneme tables do not include /ɣ/, even though they're claimed to be 'maximal' and we don't know if /ɣ/ exists or not. Also, while the table lacks /θ/ as it is missing in the south, it includes /y/, which is also missing in the south. Personally, I'd add all three, and note that they only occur (or may only occur) in the north.

Okay, I'm done for now, if you want to start again. I'll come back later for the few paragraphs after 'phonology'. kwami (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Grand. A couple of clarifications:

• it actually is a collection of Basque poems with a lonely E poem in amongst. I tweaked the wording; it's also the oldest coherent text I've found cited anywhere that goes beyond short phrases.
• going to move the phonemes into the table as suggested.

Akerbeltz (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So, northern has a 4-way distinction, /θ s̻ s̺ ʃ/? Wow. That's extreme.

I assume the language is ergative. That would be worth stating early on, as a clear example of how it has abandoned Romani grammar for Basque. Also, do verbs take multiple object suffixes the way Basque does, and to a greater extent or number than Romani? kwami (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Phonology: So it would seem - though that's based on Baudrimot's essay. I suspect the dental fricative may not exist anymore but in the absence of something more recent, we can't say.

Ergative: yes, case marking and verb formation essentially do exactly the same things as the underlying Basque dialects do; eg (from the poem) Hire dui ankhai baro, koloek your.familiar two eye big black-ergative.plural; for an example of crazy verbs, see the examples right at the bottom of the page. If you want to move those/change the layout/add the ergative example, feel free. I simply wasn't sure what the best way is on Wikipedia to do interlinear. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to confirm that Baudrimot attested the three sibilants in addition to theta.

With something as alien as Basque, I think it's helpful to include morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. A table to force alignment is a good idea; I added some examples to interlinear gloss based on the Leipzig glossing conventions. kwami (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, these tables you linked are much better than what I found previously. I'll steal some time later and redo the interlinear in that format where needed. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Before I do the rest kwami, have a look at these two and tell me what you think: User:Akerbeltz/Basque. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they look good.

I would make some slight changes: At List of glossing abbreviations I've listed some fairly standard abbreviations. (Refs at the bottom.) ALL, for example, generally stands for allative case, and that's what anyone familiar with such things would interpret it as. May ALLOC would be better for clarity? Likewise, PRF is generally perfect; perfective is PFV in those sources ... NOM is nominative case; nominalizer tends to be NMZ. (And PL or pl for plural: you've got both PL and PLU, which I thought at first was maybe pluractional.) There aren't very many tables like these on WP, but IMO it might be best to avoid conflicting abbreviations so we don't have problems later.

Also, it's standard practice to join abbreviations with periods and words with periods or underscores when they correspond to a single morpheme, so e.g. d-u-k would be s.t. like ABS.3sg-have-ERG.1sg.ALLOC.m (or 3rd_PERS.ABS-have-1st_PERS.ERG.ALLOC.MASC if you like; such things can depend on what contrasts in the paradigm).

Also, a minor stylistic issue: sometimes all caps can be a bit much; you might want to see how SMALL CAPS work. kwami (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah hadn't seen that list. Fully agreed to keeping to a standard, made the changes. Question - -lo is a relational suffix (see first ex), not really a prounoun but relative pronoun is the closest category. Should I link to that or produce a red link to Relational suffix?

I've stuck with the caps for now cause I can't get the small caps to work the way you probably mean - if you want to, you can amend one of the shorter interlinears and I'll do the rest once I get the idea.

And yes, that was sloppy interlinera, my bad. Been too long >.< Thanks for the kick! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

From the link & abbreviation I'd've thought it was a relativizer. I wouldn't add red links--the whole point of the links is for people to be able to follow the abbreviations. You could write a short stub article, but we probably already have one. How's it different from a genitive? Or maybe "attributive", but that's pretty much the territory that genitive covers, isn't it? kwami (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Basque has a genitive and -ko constructions. I'll quote Trask who has the most succint definition I've seen to date: The relational or adnominal suffix -ko [...] can be added to virtually any kind of adverbial phrase, regardless of its syntactic structure, to produce a complex adjectival modifier which can appear within a noun phrase. The adverbial phrase can be a lexical adverb, an adverb derived from an N-bar, a case inflected NP, a postpositional phrase, a participle phrase involving an adverbial particle, an adverbial clause or even a complement clause. [...] Really not sure where this goes. Maybe -ko deserves it's own page but that would be... stretching it on the English Wiki I guess. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that an attributive suffix. ATT and ATTR are the abbreviations I'm finding in the lit. kwami (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok will consider the split, many thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

Anyone know how to add a pending ISO code? There's a pending request [1] for Caló to be split and to assign emx to Erromintxela but I can't get the infobox to display this info in a sensible way. Suggestions? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Romani - Romanichel / Romanichal

I have never come across these people and know nothing about them but I am from an Anglo-Romani family and have good ties with other Romani groups from around the world. I also speak English Romani and have a good understanding of other Romani dialects such as those from Eastern Europe.

The first thing I notice is regardless of the spelling the word "Erromintxela" sounds exactly like Romanichela. Romanichel / Romanichal is the name by which the English Romani go by. Nobody actually knows the root of the ending Chal / chel. Some have tried to say it is from the word 'Chal' meaning boy / fellow. I myself have never come across such a word and the word Chal is not present in any other language. The truth is that nobody actually knows for sure.

The first Romani into the UK according to history were actually Kale from Spain who arrived shortly 1500ad. The Kale themselves according to records descend from a group of about 200 that appeared in the Netherlands in 1407ad and claimed to be Dukes & Earls from "Little Egypt". They then made their way down into Spain arriving in 1425ad where they received welcome and protection. From here they settled and records show that some later went onto the UK and then on onto Scandinavia (both the only two other places other than Iberia where Kale are present).

It is from the Kale that it would appear the word "Gypsy" arrived from. Notice it is predominantly from Spain (gitano) and England (Gypsy). Every where else the word is replaced by adaptations on the term "Tsigan". There is no doubt that the Kale are however an early break way group from the rest of the Romani that arrived in the Balkans in about 1300ad. At the time of the late 1300s and early 1400s the Romanian were capturing thousands of Romane from neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria and were forcing them into forced slavery. It is probable in accordance to records and evidence that a large group broke away and made their way and seeked refuge into the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Northern Italy, parts of Eastern France and Western Poland) in about 1400ad. This would explain how today we have a second Romani group who call themselves as "Sinte" and to this day live throughout the lands that were then all part of the Holy Roman Empire. Records show they did not all receive a warm welcome and in 1407 we find a third group calling themselves from "Little Egypt" who made their way down into Spain.

Amongst Kale they do not use the term "Romani" for themselves but it does mean "marriage and Husband. In the UK and throughout places such as France, it seems there was a later arriving group who obviously used the term "Romani" for themselves and it seems are a later breakaway group from the Romane still in Eastern Europe at the time as we can find words such as Bauri (snail), Pushka (gun), Kari (penis) which are Romanian / Slavic words.

I would guess the Romanichel / Erromintxela are from this later break way group or they are a mix of the two.

With regards to the list of words I can see many Romani words missing. i.e. Kitchima = pub Rart(i) = night

it appears that many words originally with 'R' become 'L' in the Basque / Spanish accent.

also words such as Bakro = Ewe / sheep are in fact masculine. A female sheep is a Bakri. As a general rule, o = masculine & i = feminine & e = plural

Signed = Tsigano

Hi Tsigano! Yes, they are one of Europe's less well know people without doubt. Now where to start...

• Regarding chal, the etymology may well be unclear but most source I've come across gloss it as "person" and we're not making any claims as to the origin of chal itself, just the current meaning.
• I'm sure there are lots of words "missing" but because I wanted to write this article in such a way to have "Good Article" status, I only used words that actually are mentioned in the literature about Erromintxela.
• I know about gender in Romani but in the process of acquiring Basque grammar, it would seem they lost productive gender marking (Basque does not mark gender) so the "only" word for the thing that goes "baa" in Erromintxela is barki.

I'm hoping for new research into the language, it's such a fascinating language in such a fascinating country! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to some of the words off the list from my personal knowledge (not a book).

Romani words Manush or Mush / Mursh for short means 'man' but can also mean husband in some dialects such as in Anglo-Romani. The female equivalent is Manushni which again in some dialects such as Anglo-Romani can mean wife. There is another word for woman which is Rani / Rawni but this is actually supposed to mean 'lady' as in 'Lord & Lady' or 'Ladies & Gentlemen'. Gentleman / Lord in Romani is Rai = Rai ta Rani = Gentleman / Lord & Lady. Mule is Mailo Putsi is purse /pocket which would explain wallet Terno in Romani means young (masculine) Fula meaning shit (as in dog shit) would be Khul / Khula in Romani. Cat is Matchiko (m) or Matchika (f) Crazy is Divilo

Words ending in -av mean 'I' i.e. Dikhav = I see. It doesn't actually mean - To see. If it was he / she sees then it would be Dikhel.

Also the article deosn't make clear that 'x' in Romani words is pronounced as a hard 'kh' as in the 'ch' in the English word Loch. Eat is Xa as in more like Kha. In modern English-Romani the X often get pronounced as a 'H' for some unknown reason. i.e. hal = to eat. or food is Haben / Hoben from Romani 'Xabe'. c with the little hat above it is the same as 'ch' in English like in the word church. i.e steal is spelt as chor in English-Romani.

I'm guessing that the 'x' in the Erromintxela words is pronounced as 'ch'.

Not sure if this helps or whether you are already aware. Obviously I am unaware if you are Romane or Gaje or is fluent in the language or not?

I must say it is a fascinating article and has greatly intrigued me. I may have relations across the English channel I was unaware of. They may share a closer history to me than that my distant relations I meet coming across from Eastern Europe. Many thanks

Tsigano (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point regarding pronunciation, I need to add that. The letters are pronounced as in Basque so x as in shirt, tx as in chocolate.

Gažo sim áli žanáv círa romanés ;) - I mainly have a linguistic interest in the topic.

The discrepancy between forms like "dikháv" and "to see" is simply down to a difference in what is known as "citation forms", that means that languages often choose different forms under which a certain word is listed in a dictionary. In English it tends to be the infinitive "to ..." but in Romani dictionaries it tends to be the 1st person singular "I ..." Just different conventions.

As I said, there are many Romani or Caló words but not all of them may or may not be in Erromintxela so unless they appear in a publication marked as Erromintxela, I'd rather not add them.

But I'm glad that this article has intrigued you, it's nice to hear that given how much time I stuck into researching it! Ka dikhás amé Akerbeltz (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many examples?

This article has a lot of examples.
Particularly for a language spoken by virtually nobody.
Three variant pronunciations of "dogshit". Well, I am buying my airline ticket now; I'm ready.
Some/many of the examples are identical to Romani, but simply conform to a different spelling standard. So why list them?
Varlaam (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We had this debate during the GA nomination. The issue is that unlike with other small languages, there is virtually no single source which gives a coherent overview over the corpus. Since the corpus itself is very small as well (as linguistic corpora go), we decided we'd let the examples stand in this instance. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)