Talk:Galician language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Earlier talk at Talk:Galizan -- Error 01:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk

In general your article is well written, although I would disagree with the "Galego is a dialect of Portuguese" statement. Some linguists, mainly Portuguese, do affirm such, but I would imagine that Galego linguists, and certainly Galego speakers, would never accept that their own unique language is just an offshoot of Portuguese. If you spend some time in Galicia, listening to the people, reading the newspapers, watching the TV, and listening to the radio you will find so many words, grammatical constructions, and especially pronunciation that do not exist in Portuguese. Many of them of course have come from Castillian, due to the long domination by that language. There has been almost no linguistic imput from modern Portuguese, especially that spoken across the border. I live near the border with Galicia so I am in constant contact with their language. People understand each other but often Portuguese will try to speak Castillian to a Galego because the real Galego is just to different from their own Portuguese. User:portcult

No one said Galician is an offshot of Portuguese. Both languages (or, in some views, varieties) come from Galego-Português. I tend to consider Galician as a distinct language. Most Portuguese use Castilian in Galicia because they don't know the linguistic situation of Spain (almost no one in Portugal knows Spain has 4 official languages). User:Marco Neves

---

You are right Marco. We have to stop meeting like this. But we seem to be having some interesting conversations--or should I say monologues. I guess we are interested in similar topics. A big problem, if we can call it that, is that many speakers of Galego mix with Castillian and the result is the so-called Castrapo. I once heard a Galega speaking Galego and saying abuela and I asked if that was correct in Galego. Embarrassed, she said that avó was the word in "correct" Galego.

About the Castrapo: I think it is natural that two languages in close contact form those mixed forms:Like Spanglish in South US.There's even "portuñol", which appears when a Portuguese tries to speak Castilian in Spain, thinking it to be an easy language...User:Marco Neves

Why do we have to stop meeting like this? It may be funny, if we don't get in "angry discussions" ;) But I guess we agree more than it seems and, yes, we are interested in similar topics, I guess. And any dialogue can be seen as two monologues, don't you think? :) Cheers to you! User:Marco Neves P.S.: Please, sign your comments.

It happens always that two languages collide that a collection of incorrections appear. Think of Spanglish, for example. --83.43.149.218 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I think we have to realize that Galician, like all languages are in a continuous state of evolution. Perhaps because of the tug-of-war between Castillian to Galicia east and Portugal to its south, the evolution of Galician is taking place at rapid pace. Grammatically and syntactically, Galician has more in common with Portuguese, but in terms of pronunciation it appears closer to Castillian. The situation is actually very similar to what speakers in England faced in the decades after the Norman Invasion (1066)-- a germanic gramatical substrate overlaid with a French (or Norman) pronunciation and growing French vocabulary. So how will Galician evolve going forward, much depends: on influences from other languages especially in this day of instant electronic communication and mass media; on the will and resoluteness of the Galician people (cf Hebrew in Israel, and in contrast Irish in Ireland, Ukrainian in the Ukraine). I can certainly conceive of a scenario if Galicians were able to obtain increased Portuguese and Brazilian television and radio programing, it could very easily evolve more toward Portuguese. An interesting question though would be toward which Portuguese: Galician linguist evolution was heavily influenced by Castillian for centuries while Continental Portuguese took a separate evolutionary path, while at the same time Brazilian Portuguese took another one. Today, at least in popular speech, the differences between the Portuguese spoken in Brazil and in Portugal are significant (much more so than between English in the US and English in the UK). Portuguese itself is evolving rapidly with Brazilian having a preponderance of influence owing to mass media on the vernacular not only in Portugal but in Africa as well. I can also conceive of a different scenario whereby Galician will evolve in a more or less sui generis manner incorporating elements of Castilian (from a political standpoint this is almost unavoidable) and of Portuguese. Menosnac 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)menosnac

---

Removed:

Language and cultural activism has to struggle not only against growing assimilation to Spanish but also against cultural globalization.

This is non-NPOV. What is cultural globalisation and how does it threaten Galician? Is it because McDonalds menus are printed in American?--XmarkX 17:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • I think it is wrong to say galizan is a dialect of portuguese, why not say portuguese is a dialect of galizan? after all the name of the old language(from which both languages originate) was Galego-portugues not Portugues-Galego Sincerley ,Jose Franco

When one affirms that Galizan is a dialect of Portuguese, it is of course the same thing as saying that Portuguese is a dialect of Galizan. Your problem, Jose Franco, seems to be that you think that when one says 'X is a dialect of Y', one implies that Y is the 'correct' language and X the 'debased' one. That's very much a 19th-century point of view! Both X and Y are equally valid forms of the language. We might perhaps add something to that effect: that some consider Galizan a dialect of Portuguese, or that conversely, Portuguese is a dialect of Galizan. Wtrmute 01:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd, considering Portuguese and Galician dialects of the same language is like considering English and German dialects of an old anglo-saxon language.--83.43.149.218 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't consider Galician and Portuguese dialects of the same language, but the fact that some consider them to be both dialects of the same language is not the same thing as English and German. English and German are completely unintelligible both in written and spoken forms. Even Frisian, which is closer to English, wouldn't be comparable. Maybe the closest thing for comparison is comparing English and Scots. From what I've studied of both languages, Galician and Portuguese, they are listed as separate languages. But from the linguists that do call them dialects of the same language, they say that they're part of the same dialect continuum and not that Galician sprung from Portuguese or that Portuguese sprung from Galician. Kman543210 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to Galician language

The WikiProject Languages is attempting to standardize all language entries by proscribing a language description template (now in use here) and storing language content in articles named 'X language'. Galician could then be used as a more general page to link to this language page, the Galicia page, a page about Galician people/culture etc. Galician language "exists" but in fact only contains a redirect, so no content will be lost in this move. Part of this move will be to change links to this page including those at Galicia. It is currently under discussion for an admin move at the requested moves page. Abbruzzi 14:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved. - UtherSRG 13:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone recently moved this article back to 'Galician'. Almost every language article on the whole wikipedia has a title "x language", except for this one. Even French language, English language, etc. Why is it not necessary here? The word Galician by itself in English can still be an adjective for "from Galicia" (person or adjective) so it makes sense to specify language. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

restored from merge

hm.... there is an inconsistency here, I think:

While it is a minority language, it is heavily used by its people (according to some estimates, by over 95% of its population).

How can a language be a minority language if it is spoken by over 95% of the population? --Calypso

• because the country is Spain. Althought it is spoken virtually by everyone there, it is usual to see, Galician politicians speaking in Spanish, publicity is in spanish, in bank Spanish is used, etc. etc. And there is only one regional channel that broadcast in Galician. When I talk about languages issues to Galicians, they say that It was very common their parents were beaten just by speaking it in school, this was during the repressive regime. Though they say that the society still preserves some hostility towards the language and consider it rural and marginal (aka minority). -Pedro 03:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

At a wild guess, a "minority language" in Spain as a whole, but spoken by most of the people of Galicia? (I have no actual data here.) Vicki Rosenzweig

---

Well, perhaps. But I am not sure if that was the intended meaning, and the figure strikes me as way too high. I'll investigate. Calypso

--

Those percentage data refer only to the degree of listening proficiency or ability to understand the language of Galician people. According to some statistics, 95% of the Galician population state they are able to understand the language. However, figures for other skills as reading, writing and speaking proficiency are slightly different. I think those data should be easy to find on the internet with a little research.

Vicki's guess could be right but in my opinion a minority language is that one which co-exists with one or more language within a territory, not necessary a country, but its degree of use or position has been relegated by another wider spoken language. Its position as a minority language has only sense within certain boundaries which have to be consider.

Although Galician, as Basque and Catalonian languages, are official languages in Spain and at least is legally possible to speak Galician in Andalusia, where no Galician is spoken at all, I think it may have no sense to regard Galician language as minority in this context. The same applies for Spain.

For instance, Cantonese and Mandarin are official languages in Hong Kong. Within this context we could regard Mandarin as a minority language (Cantonese is the most spoken language in Hong Kong by far), but that doesn't mean Mandarin should be generally consider a minority language. Indeed, it is the most spoken language around the world. This clearly proves a piece of territory must be defined to regard a language as a minority language.

Considering basically the Galician region we should think how much often the Galician language is used by Galician people? Is it there a minority language, or on the contrary, is the most spoken language? I hope somebody could shed some light to this topic.

Possible incoherences in the article

"In fact, after centuries of separation between both languages mutual comprehension is sometimes very difficult."

Really?! Why I dont believe in this. o_O - Pedro

You're absoultely right. Portuguese people who can watch Galician television (TVG), say they understand Galician even better than Spanish. Galician-speakers might not always make themselves understood at the first try in Portugal (e.g. if Galicians try to buy socks, they will probably ask for "calcetíns", while in Portugal this piece of clothing is known as "malhas"), but they undoubtedly have far less problems than any other foreigner in that country.

I dont know what relation has Dutch and german. No one doubts that German and Dutch are 2 languages, while a lot of people doubts that Galician and Portuguese are. Portuguese and Galician can be only compared with Romanian and Moldavan, this is the only similar case that I know. -Pedro 03:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Really? As far as I know, standard Romanian-Moldovan don't have more differences than the name, and (in some periods) the writing system. Are there Galician - Portuguese dictionaries? It seems that there is one Moldovan - Romanian dictionary that most people consider unnecessary.

Maybe Quebec French and France French, American and English or Dutch and Flemish are better examples, but I'm getting out of my league.

--Error 00:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• American and British English VS Galician and Portuguese? I dont think so. It would be odd. American and British English are undoubtly the same language due to the language itselft and History (the british toke the language to the US), and both have natural dialectilization without the interference of other relevant languages. There are several of differences between Moldavan and Romanian. Moldavan is very influenced by Russian! Just like Galician is by Spanish. The language Romanian/Moldavan Portuguese/Galician have born in that places. The only difference is that the Port. Gal. case is a lot older that the Romanian and the Moldavan. Ok. Spanish and Portuguese have most of the same lexicon, that reduce the problem of it being a issue with a lot of centuries. And *OMG* when I'm using my Spanish dictionary the word in Portuguese is sometimes the same has the Portuguese or very similar (it seems a mirror LOL). I dont know any Port. Gal. dictionary. I know there are software programs that change the "ble" to "vel" "ion" to "ão", etc. -Pedro 01:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, a much, much better parallel would be that of English + Scots. —Wiki Wikardo 04:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the relation between Dutch and German can be compared to Spanish and Portuguese. Many people say that. Portuguese and Spanish are two very different languages, both extremely related. -Pedro 03:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From what I read, they say that Dutch - German is a language continuum, you could go from town to town finding intercomprehension with the neighbours, while the extremes (standard Dutch and standard German) are not. I don't know if one could say that there is a continuum Portuguese - Galician - Spanish. Certainly Galician speakers slide between full Galician and full Spanish according to the situation.--Error 00:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dutch and German are not mutually intelligible. In fact, although they are obviously related, Dutch and German are actually not as close to each other as for example Spanish and Portuguese. Dutch is however very close to and probably mutually intelligible with Low German, a separate language that used to be spoken in northern Germany before modern standard German took over. As far as Galician is concerned, my impression is that the written language looks a lot like Old Portuguese, especially when the Portuguese-based AGAL ortography is used. The spoken language on the other hand sounds like Portuguese pronounced with a Spanish accent and full of Spanish idioms/syntax. 161.24.19.82 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Saturday, I was talking to a Galician women, suddenly she used the word "targeta" I didnt understand. Because for me "targeta" is Spanish. If she said "La targeta" I would undestand, but "a targeta". it really seems that Galicia is a huge town between Port. and Spa. Do Spanish for instance in Madrid understand spoken Galician easily? If they do, it really is. For what I know there are several dialects in Galicia and some are very close to the neighbouring Portuguese dialect in Alto Minho and Trás-os-Montes. -Pedro 01:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can be said that there is a linguistic continuum among Portuguese, Galician and ancient Asturian language (wich is today still alive in places such Miranda do Douro). What nowadays is called Spanish is a variant of Latin talked by Basque people and has some unique features that make it different like five-vowel phonetics instead of seven-vowel Imperial Latin system, and can be considered not in the same linguistic system than Galician and Portuguese. It's true that Galician and northern Portuguese dialects were very close-related but difference is rapidly increased as these are substituted by standard Portuguese and, in a lesser extent, standard Galician.

Galician a dialect of Portuguese?

I haven't edited this article before, so i'll make my points here first in an analogy.

It is a fact that the Portuguese language originated in Galicia, and was then spread throughout Portugal with the Reconquista where it elvoled into Portuguese (whether as sister dialects or sister languages).

Latin was also the language of Rome, and was spread with Roman expansionism to almost all of Southern Europe. I will use Hispania (Spain) as the example region.

Now, spoken (vulgar) Latin was taken into Hispania and evolved into Spanish. Obviously Latin remained the language of Rome, and the vulgar Latin spoken there eventually evloved into Italian. One cannot then claim that Italian is a dialect or language derrived from Spanish. If the linguistic predecessor of Spanish migrated out of Rome, and then the Latin speakers remaining in Rome continued to evolve their language into Italian, how is it academic to say that Italian comes from Spanish?

Yet, here we have the suggestion that; early-Galician/proto-Portuguese leaves its region of origin (Galicia), evolves into Portuguese, and then Portuguese classifies Galician (also derrived from early-Galician/proto-Portuguese) to be a dialect or linguistic derivation of Portuguese. But from the time when they split, Galician has also evolved and diverged from early-Galician/proto-Portuguese, and furthermore it did so in its predecesor's region of origin, and could call itself modern Galician (as it does)"

Now say all that with by substituting with the nouns Latin (in lieu of early-Galician and proto-Portuguese), Italian (in lieu of Galician) and Spanish (in lieu of Portuguese).

"...Latin leaves its region of origin (Rome), evolves into Spanish, and then Spanish classifies Italian (also derrived from Latin) to be a dialect or linguistic derivation of Spanish. But from the time when they split, Italian has also evolved and diverged from Latin, and furthermore it did so in its predecesor's region of origin, and could call itself modern Latin"

We have to look at this without bias, and forget which is considered more linguistically "important", whether because it has more speakers, or because it is linked to economic and political might. Al-Andalus 11:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).

• Don't confuse Galicia (Spain) with the former Galicia. Galician is a language from the 19th century. Portuguese is a literary language since the 13th century. Prior to that they were seen has mere dialects. The situation of Spanish and Italian is not similar to the Portuguese and Galician. Italian and all the Latin languages can really call themselfs what they want, Modern Latin wouldnt be a bad name at all. It would be useful for international languages like Portuguese or Spanish. And again, don't confuse Italy with Lacio. Italy was an area so romanized has the Iberian Peninsula, no more, no less. And it isnt the original area of Latin. A small region of it was. It isnt by any mean superior to the other Latin languages. As for the origin of the name Galicia (try to search CALLAECI). And, see were these people lived.

• A part from Galician having influence of Spanish (that you called "evolution and divergence"), undoubtly they had diverged (but in what level?), the name "Portuguese" for its language I think it is also not very correct, because the Portuguese didnt take the language to there, but it could be named Portuguese. Although early Portuguese kings find they were also kings of Galicia and tryed to conquer it. Why Galicia is today part of Spain are historical events that you can study. It isnt also correct to name Portuguese has Galician, but it could. BTW we need to correct something in the article, in Brazil (and other places, even in Portugal), galego means Northern Portuguese (it also means blond, light skinned), and Galiciano often means inhabitant of Galicia (Spain), because of the name that Spain give to it. Portuguese people use Galego and Galiza, and are used for both situations. Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are very distinctive from one another. It would be dumb to say that the other is a dialect of the other. But what about Catalan and Valencian?

• BTW you need a map to see why some linguists say it is a dialect. Both regions are not exactly seperated. So in the same level, we could say that the Spanish spoken in Burgos is another language when compared to the one of Madrid. Well, originally they came from Rome, and evolved seperatly in both cities.

-Pedro 12:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pedro, you have totally missed the point. The analogy wasn't to define Galego and Português as languages or dialects. I personally think they are merely dialects of the one same language. But that is a totally different kettle of fish. Do notice that I did say "whether as sister dialects or sister languages".

The main point was;

• Which of the two (whatever classified as dialects or languages) came from which?
• Are they sisters with an earlier common parent? or
• Is one the mother and the other the daughter?

If the latter is the case, why is Galego considered the daughter of Português, when Português came from the region that Galego never left, Galiza.

Either Português is considered a dialect of Galego (even though Português has more speakers and has been a literary language for longer) or both are classed as dialect that came from an earlier standard language that diverged into dialects (with the earlier standard tongue having gone extinct). But definitely not as Galego being a dialect of Português.

NB. Of course I was referring to Galicia (Galiza, Espanha). I was talking about the Galician language (Galego), was I not? So why would you see the need to clarify which Galicia it was that Português originated in. Obviously it wasn't in the Galicia in France. Al-Andalus 10:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC).

• ok. Portuguese didnt came from Galician, neither the reverse. The language existed in both places, and it was similar due to shared history and isolated geography. Eveen in medieval times, the language spoken in the North of the region was a little different from what was spoken in the south. But all agree these were the same - the former division didnt follow the one from today. I think none is the mother and none is the daughter. And that's the problem and probably why these languages are separated.
• Why many choose Portuguese? that is due that it was the first name that the language gained. Just that.
• BTW many think the "Gal" in Portugal and "Galicia" are related. But What I know for sure is: Gal is from Cale or calle (a settlement) in the estuary of the river douro while the Callaeci were a people in the same river, north of it and in the same area. Both the same?!... It really seems. A Galician use to tell me that the origin was the same, but I didnt believe (especially when he putted the Celts in it), but when I saw a map with the previous peoples of Lusitania in Latin... I really don't know (I continue not believing it is a Celt name). I prefer the idea of a Greek origin, although I doubt it. BTW dont you think that Portugal is a modern name for the region, at least the region of Porto (former Portucale - Portugal) was know has Portugal for a long time. The feeling of Portugal has a region just growed to other regions.
• Just to conclude: I don't know how it should be called! That's not wikipedia's problem. The reality is both are separated. For a Portuguese speaker reading the today's Galician ortography is very diffult, but if they read the Galician from AGAL for instance, they will be very confortable, and that's why they have many Portuguese and Brazilian visitors. We can't call the today's Galician writing as Portuguese, but the language is another story. -Pedro 17:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont mean this in a disrespectful manner, but having portuguese as my mother language, and reading a few texts in Galego, I find the spelling of some words in Galego to sound like a children would pronounce them in portuguese, i.e.: Portuguese for "close" (as is "i am close to him"): "perto". In Galego, this would be "preto", like a child would say it in a commom mispronnunctiation. Galego sounds like a more "free" version of Portuguese, in wich commom pronnunciation features are embedded in the written language, whereas in portuguese, you have to correct to a more "formal" spelling, i.e.: When you want to say "with the help...", the portuguese pronnunciation is: "Coa (or qua) ajuda". The propper way to write tough, would be: "Com a ajuda". In Galego, however, it is allowed to write in the more simple form: "Coa ajuda". All in all, I find Galego a VERY beatifull and pleasing language to read. -Quase 07:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "preto" doesn't have the same meaning as portuguese's "perto". It means "black". 81.45.210.215 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it sounds a lot like Rural northern Portuguese, no offense... for intance in Portuguese trip is "viagem" but a lot of people pronunced it like "viage" "uma" is somtimes pronunced like "umha" (do not confuse with unha). Yesterday I was zapping and in the Galician TV there was fire in a forest they used the word "lume" like rural people would use, while the standard would be "incêndio" or "fogo". They also pronunce "nom" like rural people. Standard Portuguese is "não" Although in urban areas of the North the most common sound is "nám" (sound), "nom" is linked with the rural and old people. I'm not saying that Galician is rural, it is just that Portuguese developed in a neutral way in relation to its dialects and people try to speak this neutral way (the standard) that's why urban people pronunce today "nám" it is more similar to standard "não" than the rural "nom". --Pedro 12:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm galician, and I find Portuguese a HARD language to read (some like leet ;-P). And even harder to understand spoken. I think I could get used to it tough, with enough time. BTW in official Galician you don't have the 'j' letter, so the right spelling is: "Coa axuda".

Regarding to the Galician TV I have noted that many times they choose a synonym to move away from spanish, and make clear they are speaking Galician and not Spanish. Politics do this ALL the time. So, "incendio" is the same in Spanish, "fogo" is "fuego", but "lume"... Who cares if it isn't the correct word? It is undoubtly true galician!!. --Pinzo 00:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be stated that Galician word for "fire", understood as i.e. "flames that burn a forest" is "lume" and not "fogo", wich is referred to gun shoots.

About Galician I think this says it all:

• Galicia (Galician: Galicia or Galiza, Spanish: Galicia, Portuguese: Galiza)

--Pedro 07:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm Galician also and I dont know what that says, Pedro. I'll only say that "Galiza", like AGAL rules aren't normative (official) forms. In Galician we don't say "nom" or "umha", we use "non" and "unha". Note that nh is not pronunced like English nh, just like Portuguese ng.

Galician an Portuguese came from the same language, but when Portugal became an independent country, and in Galicia people could use Galician only at their homes, because of the centralist politic of Castillian kings, Portuguese became a splendorous, brilliant language; and Galician a rural language. In XIX an first 30 years of XX century it lived a renaissance, but from 1936 under Francisco Franco's dictatorship it was forbidden. After all those years of margination today we have a really dialectalized modern Galician... And it's also very influenced by Spanish, because it didn't evolved in centurys, so new words must be taken from majoritary language, Spanish. It can be also because Galician people don't use often their second language, and they normally include some Spanish words. But I really felt offended when I could read in other wikipedias that Galician was only "Portuñol". Well, Spanish and Portuguese people have some difficulties to understand it (for example, its verbal conjugation is different of Spanish and Portuguese ones).

And in XIV century, Galician was a literary language, did you hear about Martin Codax or Meendinho? 213.60.169.12 15:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Tzuar

• a) Since 2003, Galiza is ALSO an official form of the Community's name. b)Many Galicians DO use their "second" language on a daily basis. c)Priority should be given to Portuguese (NOT SPANISH, and this is shared even by the RAG) when it comes to introduce new words into the language. Manudosde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.106.72 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I didnt said that I was using the "official" norm; I was using Portuguese ortography or AGAL if you want to name it like that. Unha in Portuguese is read very differently u-nha and it is another thing ;). Never heard any of those, sorry :| --Pedro 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The 3 most common Romance languages spoken in the Iberian Peninsula are Castilian (also known as Spanish), Galician-Portuguese, and Catalan-Valencian. Catalan as used in Catalonia properly and Valencian are actually two varieties of the same language pretty much like Dutch and Flemish for example. The proper classification of Galician is somewhat more controversial in the sense that the pro-Spanish government of Galicia has adopted a written standard for the language that is heavily based on Castilian ortography, grammar and vocabulary and was deliberately designed to underscore the differences between Galician and Portuguese. On top of that, widespread Galician/Castilian bilingualism has had a considerable effect on Galician phonology, especially among urban middle-class speakers. From the point of view of a native Portuguese speaker then (I'm Brazilian BTW), modern Galician sounds like Portuguese words spoken with a Spanish accent. The written language on the other hand looks like a mixture of Portuguese and Spanish. When Galician is written instead using the AGAL norm, it resembles old (medieval) Portuguese to me. It should be noted also that a small minority of "galegos" advocate the use of standard European Portuguese (i.e neither RAG nor AGAL Galician) as the official language of Galicia. 161.24.19.82 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad article

There are just so many debatable statements made within the article that I believe it warrants a review and rewriting.

Galego meets every requirement to be classified as its own language. If we are to try to argue the possibility of there being a single true language with various dialects it should then be consistently and accurately referred to as galego-portuguese. Instead of trying to make an argument of it just being Portuguese. Though it is a fact that Portuguese is the geographically dominant variant, it can just as easily be argued that Portuguese be classified as a Galego dialect as it wholly originated from the area and only partially from Portugal. The are more Portuguese speakers in Brazil, but no one is brazen enough to suggest that it should be called Brazilian.

Galego is institutionalized, it is wrong to say that no serious attempts are being made to prevent the assimilation and loss of the language. In the last three decades (post Franco) there has been a progressive movement for the preservation, promotion and permanency of the language by the state. It is the common tongue, it is being taught in schools, even official public / state highway signs are written in it, so much so, that soon a tourist may not find a Spanish (castillian) translation dictionary of any usefulness. Regions have become so autonomous, that a common joke amongst Spaniards now is that you will be able to speak Spanish all over the world but Spain.

Line Removed

"Further, it has been recognized shortly as a language of work at the European Union!"

-I removed this line as it is both poorly worded and appears to be expressing some feelings or opinions with the exclamation mark.

EU use

Why have the references to the oral use in the EU of galician and understoof as portuguese been removed? To be exact, these two:

|nation=Galicia, Spain, accepted orally in the European Union parliament as a variant of the Portuguese language and written as Portuguese

Further, it will be recognized shortly as a language of work at the European Union, although it has been already used previously in EU institutions, namely the European Parliament, by, among others, the galicians Camilo Nogueira and José Beiras, and being there understood and translated as an accent of the Portuguese language. Q1234

Please, just consult the several interviews in portuguese press (journals, radio and TV) and you will confirm it has been used in the EU as another variety of Portuguese (just as Flemish is spoken in the EU and understood as a variety of Dutch). Ok, as nobody disagrees, at least in a spoken manner, I will add back the changes. Q12334

removed reference to flemish-dutch

I removed

as well as between Flemish and Dutch.

as the relationship between Flemish and Dutch is closer than that between American and British English. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added it again:
• that comparison is often used by the supporters, in fact it is the preferable one, for what I can tell.
• "Flemish and Dutch is closer than that between American and British English" So what? This is Portuguese and Galician, a similar relation to Flemish and Dutch, anything like the variations of English, the US dialects are variations of the English brought there by the Brits at a very recent time (colonization). Native Americans didn't spoke it, before they went there.
• No one is saying that Flemish and Dutch are different languages. Maybe we should use "Flemish and Standard Dutch"?! --Pedro 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some random comments about the article

From the introduction:

"Many linguists consider Modern Galician and Portuguese as dialects or varieties of the same language; the question of which variety is the true form is a matter of debate."

What on Earth does 'true form' mean, here? This should be reworded, or deleted.

"However, neither the Galician government, nor the vast majority of Galician people regard their language as a variety of Portuguese, but rather as a separate language."

Is there any evidence that "the vast majority of Galician people" regard Galician as a separate language from Portuguese? Some polls, perhaps? If not, it's POV, and should be withdrawn from the article.

"However, in some aspects, the Portuguese dialects are more conservative than the Galician ones, which for the most part have lost the voiced fricative /z/."

If this statement were on the phonology section, it would be perfectly acceptable, but I think it's not accurate to put it in the introduction. Portuguese is more conservative than Galician as far as the consonants are concerned, but Galician is more conservative than Portuguese in other aspects, such as the vocabulary, or even the phonology of the vowels.

From the History section:

"After the separation of Portuguese and Galician, Galician was considered provincial, and it was not widely used for literary or academic purposes until its renaissance in the mid-19th century."

Whoa, big leap there! And so many interesting things happened in between! This should be expanded.

In the table of consonants, I see the spelling NH for [ŋ], which is odd. I thought the official spelling was MH...

It would be interesting to make a comparison between the phonology and the grammar of Portuguese and Galician, showing the main differences (and similarities, perhaps). FilipeS 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the table of consonants, I see the spelling NH for [ŋ], which is odd. I thought the official spelling was MH..." No, it's NH. My mistake. FilipeS 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact Galician wast almost not written between XV and XIX centuries, so it´s very little that can be said. From the few known texts from that era it can be stated that j-g is increasingly confused with x, ss-ç-z spelling is gradually abandoned suggesting ss-s and z-ç merging, new sounds appear (like coastal /ħ/ for /g/) and ñ replaces nh, wich can be found only in texts transcribing Portuguese characters. There can also be said that lexic is heavily influenced by Spanish in certain areas (mostly in church and government-related ones and neologisms) where grammar tends to remain unchanged from that of Galaico-Portuguese spoken in Galicia. It is a long and mostly-unknown process from wich arise the differences between modern Galician and Portuguese.

self contracdicting statement

the last sentence of the second paragraph

After centuries of separation between the two languages, mutual comprehension can sometimes be difficult, although usually it is quite fluent.

is self contradicting. either mutual comprehension is sometimes difficult or its usually quite fluent but not both! i don't know enough about the subject to modify this but perhaps someone else can. if this is not a contradiction, then this is at least confusing for someone who is a layperson in the subject.uri budnik 07:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I changed that to this:

Mutual intelligibility is good between Galicians and Northern Portuguese, but poorer between Galicians and speakers of Central-Southern European Portuguese.

I've taken it from the Portuguese language article, which is more factual.--Pedro 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: some changes

I have read this article a couple of times and I honestly think there are parts that can be improved - it does not fit the general style of Wikipedia giving long explanations such as this article does when you can simply provide a pair of useful links, and there are paragraphs that simply don't fit into anything that tries to be an encyclopedia. There we go!

- Instead of telling that 'The popular dialects from the regions immediately south of the border are virtually identical to those from the north, but while the former are referred to as Portuguese, the latter are called Galician', can't we say that there is a Dialect continuum between Galician and Portuguese?

-Instead of 'In recent years the Galician government has made many changes to the Galician language in order to preserve it. However, official Galician and the Galician that is spoken by the people of the region in actuality is substantially different. Spoken Galician would be seen as incorrect by the Galician government because a large percentage of its words are Spanish, although the speaker may not even realize it.', that in fact seems to indicate that Galician people do not know how to speak its own language, it can be said simply 'In recent years some normative changes have benn done to replace Castillian features for Galician proper ones', or a similar claim.

-I have substituted the 'Mutual intelligibility is good between Galicians and Portuguese.' for the previous one that says Mutual intelligibility is good between Galicians and Northern Portuguese, but poorer between Galicians and speakers of Central-Southern European Portuguese. It is by far more factual and it's the statement that can be found on the Portuguese language page, so I hope there's no doubt about its idoneity. Please don't change it again without further discussing!

-I believe neither Flemish and Dutch nor Macedonian and Bulgarian are good examples as they became separates after Renaissance if ever - none of them branched out in the Middle Ages as the article says about Galician-Portuguese. However, I have not removed them, but added Occitan and Catalan, which agree much better with the history paragraph as you can read in Occitan and Catalan.

-The text telling us that 'Note that the official orthography is almost exactly the same as Castilian orthography; thus "official" Galician does not have its own orthography, having adapted the Spanish. For instance, official Galician spelling does not make a difference between open and closed vowels, since they are absent in Spanish. Not a single rule of official Galician orthography is unique to it: all are taken from Spanish orthography. Strictly speaking, it could be said that official Galician orthography does not exist at all separately from Spanish.' is nothing but a burst against officialist norms and it violates every possible NPOV rule you can imagine. Considering Wikipedia is neither a blog nor your webpage, I think your reflexions simply shouldn't be here. I have replaced it for 'a minority of citizens would rather have the institutions recognize Galician as a Portuguese variety, and therefore opt for the use of the Portuguese writing system, perhaps with some adaptations, while accussing "official" Galician of not having its own ortography but a Spanish calque one', but it can be changed for every other NPOV sentence you judge more factual.

- I added a link to Spelling reforms of Portuguese into the Acordo de Rio text. I really think about this section being biased as a whole, but I haven't written it again - this time.

- I have removed the '¹ Quero-te means "I want you" in Portuguese. In fact, "quérote" in official Galician is a calque from Spanish. "Avó" (acute) in Portuguese means "Grandmother" from "(arch.) avoa > avó". In official Galician the "o" in "Avó" is pronounced the same as Portuguese "Avô". The cognate in Spanish for Portuguese "Obrigado" is "Obligado," which literally means "obliged." The colloquial word for dog in Spanish is "perro," which has overtaken the original "can" in everyday usage.' paragraph as I don't really see what it's doing into a general article like this one - perhaps the faction that wrote this paragraph should create an article like Main reintegrationist objections to official norms, which makes more sense.

"Can" is overwhelmingly the Galician word for "dog". I simply cannot see what are you referring to, unless you are talking about the Galician (taken from medieval Spanish) word "perro" meaning "Jew".

Removed incorrect statement

Someone has written that Galician spelling doesn't difference between mid-open and mid-closed wovels. I cannot imagine what does he/she think the pairs "oso/óso" or "bola/bóla" or the accent in "cómpre" mean.

This is true. Source here. FilipeS 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused about "norms"

The article today (Madman 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) says:

Galician is considered by some to be a different written norm of a common language with Portuguese. Galician and Portuguese form a dialect continuum, but their written norms are substantially different.

In July 2003 the Real Academia Galega (Galician Royal Academy) modified the language normative to admit some archaic Galician-Portuguese forms conserved in modern Portuguese. These changes . . . represent, in words of the Galician Language Academy, "the normative desired by 95% of Galicians." The 2003 reform is thought to put an end to the so-called "normative wars" raised by the different points of view at the relationship between the modern Galician and Portuguese languages. (my italics)

I honestly do not know quite what is meant by "written norm" or "modifying the language normative" or the other italicized words. They are not explained in the article, nor are there links provided. The lead paragraphs should be simple enough for folks like me to understand. Madman 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not enough

Galician is more similar to Portuguese than to Castillan. Just compare the table with the words in the article. Second, Galician is not a language but a dialect. "Modern day linguistics knows that the status of language is not solely determined by linguistic criteria, but it is also the result of a historical and political development." Wikipedia

Exactly, politics comes into place as well, and the Galician government and the Galician universities say that Galician is an independent language. Also, it has its own orthography, its own dictionaries, etc., so it is treated as independent, de facto and de jure. This is a fact that cannot be denied. FilipeS 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know the how useful is a Galician-Portuguese dictionary. I see the usefulness of Portuguese-Spanish but Portuguese-Galician dictionary seems quite useless.For instance the word avó in galego and portuguese is the same, in Spanish is abuela.There is a big difference here. I think if Galicia was not under Spanish the difference between Galician and Portuguese would be inexistant or merly circustancial. But that's just my opinion.--Fpenteado 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fpenteado (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

What's 'Lusist'

The table with examples list both "Galician (Official)" and "Galician (Lusist)". But 'lusist' is not defined in the article.

I'll replace it with "reintegrationist". FilipeS 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spain has just ONE official language

It is false that there are 4 official languages in Spain. Spanish or Castilian is the only official language in Spain. Then there are 4 that are cooficiales, that is, official alongside Spanish in a restricted area: Galician, Basque, Catalan/Valencian and Aranese (Gascon). That is why at European and international levels, Spain is officially seen as a monolingual country, even if Spanish is a second (sometimes third) language to a quarter or more of the population. --Purplefire 04:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've never read the Spanish Constitution:

Las demás lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas… (Artículo III) FilipeS (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't finish reading the Constitution oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas Offical in the respective autonomous communitites.

They are still official, duh. FilipeS (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenguas españolas

What is that? --Galician (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lenguas españolas means Spanish languages or the languages of Spain. What it basically means is that there are several distinct languages spoken in Spain. Only one is official at the federal level, Spanish (castellano/español), but Galician, Catalan, Basque, and Aranese are official in specific autonomous communities. Kman543210 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Other dialects of Spanish

You could say something about how some Galician words are not taken from European Spanish but from Rioplatense or other American dialects. I don't remember any particular example. --Error (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

wat? --83.165.88.163 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Error means that other dialects of Spanish have influenced the Galician language such as Rioplatense Spanish (spoken in Argentina) and not just Castilian or Peninsular Spanish. If there are reliable sources that give examples of this influence, then feel free to add and cite. I do not personally know of any examples. Kman543210 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Links

I've tidied up the links section a little, adding some info on some of them and a couple of new sites such as galego.org (providing the direct link to the English version) and the newspaper "Novas da Galiza". The "Biblioteca Virtual Galega" was there twice, so I removed one of the entries. Swamp Greetings (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter spaces/distances in the first lines

Am I the only who to whom the first lines appear very ugly because they use larger spaces between the different letters and words? It looks horrible and I don't know what causes it. 82.170.131.213 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism in Galician

I've removed an entire paragraph that was recently added in good faith, since its assertions are dubious at best, unclear in their intent, and unsupported by citations. Taking it point by point:

Galician language, because of its periferical characteristic...

Assuming you mean "peripheral", in relation to its geographical location...

... it's distinguished from other Romance languages for being conservative and original.

This statement would definitely need a citation: Galician is not often given as an example of conservatism in Romance languages (cf. Sardinian, for example), and whilst geographical isolation is often given as a reason for conservatism, it still needs backing up in this case.

Among the latest phenomena there are the dropping of intervocalic -n- and -l- 
(it took place in 9th and 10th centuries) and the evolution of Latin groups cl-,
pl- and fl- 

If you're implying that there have been unusually few changes in the language since the 10th century, then you should state that and back it up with a citation. Otherwise, it's not clear what these two sentences are supposed to demonstrate about conservatism in Galician.

and the conservative ones are the mantenance of Latin expressions 
(like the future Subjunctive) that dissapeared in other Romance languages.

The future subjunctive is no more alive in everyday speech in Galician than it is in Spanish, and it is certainly less used in modern Galician than in modern Portuguese (see Portuguese_language#Grammar). The Normas Ortográficas E Morfolóxicas Do Idioma Galego published by the Real Academia Galega (20th ed. 2005) have this to say:

"Futuro de subxuntivo. É un tempo desaparecido da fala viva, onde só se mantén fosilizado en refráns e fórmulas. Porén, tivo un amplo uso na época medieval e aínda a súa presenza é significativa na literatura decimonónica, con continuidade, ás veces con usos incorrectos, na lingua literaria do século XX. Así pois, dada a súa lexitimidade histórica e a súa rendibilidade en certos rexistros lingüísticos, como por exemplo a linguaxe xurídica, cómpre restaurar o seu uso, sempre dentro dos límites da corrección establecidos pola gramática."

So all they're really saying is that it's worth restoring for its historical value and limited formal usage, so that they can regulate it. Acasson (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Acasson, I only want to point out a single matter: both RAG and ILG have been very erratic in their work of "regulation" of Galician language (and it is not an opinion, you can check it easily). Even more, the ILG pusblished in early 70s a kind of grammar or something, titled "Gallego" (1, 2 and 3), sic, in which you can read, among others, sentences like "estrada (sic) is a lusism completely alien to Galician, being carreteira (sic) the correct form". It would be a joke if authors weren't reputed philologists currently in both ILG and RAG. 91.117.9.231 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The text quoted is purposely false, as the futuro de subxuntivo is not disappeared at all. I have heard it used myself. The point is that RAG ILG and USC deny the existence of this tense as part of their plan to hide any possible similarities with Portuguese (or, the other way round, any possible dissimilarities with Spanish). The University of A Coruña position is divergent in this case.

probably incorrect or missing transcription of grapheme ll

as I discovered, according to the subarticle 'phonology' the grapheme ll has two possible pronunciations ʎ and ʝ. it seems to me strange because alongside with this two, there are more often pronounced sounds: affricate ɟʝ and complicated affricate of ʝ and ɟ, more exactly ʝɟʝ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.38.189 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I see that the consonant table in the section on phonology says that "nh" as in "algunha" is pronounced /ŋ/, as in the English "ng" in "sing". I'm surprised that it is not pronounced the same as "nh" in Portuguese: /ɲ/. Is this correct as is? Duoduoduo (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but only in modern official spelling, which is based mostly in Spanish orthography. But many people, like myself, prefer to use 're-integrationist' spelling (English: 'a variety of Portuguese spelling'), at least for private and non official use. So:

Official / Reintegrationist / sound:

nh / mh / /ŋ/ : unha / umha (Portuguese is just uma with /m/): 'one / a'

ñ / nh / /ɲ/ : España / Espanha: 'Spain'
--Froaringus (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for your very clear explanation! Duoduoduo (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :-)--Froaringus (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Eonavian & Midwestern Asturian

Let's see if I'm understanding well: someone says that the dialects in Mid-western Asturias (for example around Cangas de Narcea) are really Galician? Jotamar (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been active in this article lately, but as long as I know nobody today defends that Western Asturian is a Galician variety (!). Of course, the Fala of the lands of the Eo-Navia region is (usually) considered Galician, or anyway as a member of the Galician-Portuguese language(s).--Froaringus (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but user Candalín seems to to be trying to state otherwise. Jotamar (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About a different matter: when I include a Clarification needed template, I'm asking for a clarification of a sentence I don't understand, that is, I'm not asking for a reference. Jotamar (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The amendment follows the argument about affectation of eonavian by the existence of the "continuum" linguistic. If the artificial border is the Navia River, we should understand so the territory affected will be both parts of Asturias: the far Western Asturian and Midwestern Asturian. If that's the argument, it's necessary therefore to quote the authors that hold that theory, because they always appointment both territories and not only eonavian territory. It's necessary to highlight too, when these theories are published, these authors did not know the existence of old parchments of eonavian and the dependence on the language spoken in the Middle Ages at Western Asturias with the Galaico-Portuguese language. Any way, If the statement that in Cangas the people speak Galician is strange for you, more it's for the eonavian people listen the statement that Eonavian people speak asturian. --Candalín (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hola Candalín. Por favor contéstame en castellano: ¿hay algún lingüista que defienda que los dialectos de Cangas de Narcea o de Luarca son gallego en realidad? Jotamar (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jotamar!. The question is double ¿Is there someone linguist who assert that the eonavian is asturian language? I mean, how Damaso Alonso said, a correct exposition should to clear that "the distinction will depend on our way to appreciate and read on a serial linguistics facts", but in both regions, in Eonavia and Asturian Middle West. This is the right exposition of this theory. If, it wasn't so, it would look that the question is limited to Eonavian language, which is false, being, in my opinion a exposition partial and interested about this theory.

As with any boundary questions, the question depends on where we set the center. In my opinion, I think so that theory is wrong because the Eonavian region, in general the Galician Western like Ancares, is, just the epicenter of the most important galician portuguese features, like the sistem vocalic, the lack of nasal consonants, the nasal vowels, verbal sistem, etc. and it shows us more evident when more we look back in time at the origin of this language. For this reason, it's so important the study of eldest documents of the Oscos Abbey, and also the close monasteries in Galician like Lorenzana, Meira, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.8.92 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I forgot to sign--Candalín (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of convenience, the discussion goes on, in Spanish, in my own talk page. Jotamar (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Adeus

Hello, I have just deleted a note in the section Examples of Writing System, specifically this one:

• In Galician adeus is rarely used (signifies that one will not see that person for many years or anymore, comparable to the use of English "farewell"). Ata logo is more common and literally means "until later" (Portuguese até logo, Spanish hasta luego).

I have deleted it because I'm from Galicia and I can say that it's completely false. The word "adeus" is used fequently and it's a synonym perfectly valid of "ata logo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.228.44 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You should write it back!.I don't know what kind of Galician language you have been educated in, but in the traditional usage:"Adeus díselle ós mortos":Galician old folk still take ofence nowadays if you tell them 'adeus' instead of 'ata logo' as they feel you are wishing them Death (like in ...not to see them again).I think the distinction made by the writer was very accurate and reflected a sound knowledge of the Galician traditional usage.Yes,I know that 'adeus' is a perfectly valid word (and you are right when you say that it is being increasingly used in recent times by people who doesn't know about this traditional difference between 'adeus' and 'ata logo'),but depending on the context it can be something really impolite to be said,being 'ata logo' or 'deica logo' far more convenient forms in these cases.Congratulations to the original writer of the sentence for knowing about such a subtle nuance of the Galician traditional usage.BTW I'm also Galician,it must just be that I'm probably older than you and that I belong to the countryside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.108.165 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are trying to be sarcastic, I shall say to you that you should be the one that write it back or correct. Wikipedia encourages readers to do so. Just if you are trying to be sarcastic.83.32.43.179 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

83.32.43.179 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)