Talk:Sequence of Saint Eulalia

Removal of Vulgar Latin

I have removed the transposition of the text into "hypothetical post-imperial Vulgar Latin", first added in December 2010. This, and subsequent edits, were OR. The same action was taken for similarly unsourced content in Oaths of Strasbourg in April 2007. I have added an English translation directly quoted from two different sources (hoping in this way to avoid both NOR and COPYVIO problems). Notable remarks about the VL sources of individual words or structures in the Sequence can be added in the Analysis section, but only if they are taken from reliable, cited sources. CapnPrep (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Concurrence -- although the exercise is interesting.

However viable "Vulgar Latin" (VL) was as a language, it was not written -- and any effort to translate any language into VL is hence moot. It is a reconstruction; it is possible that VL contained archaisms from Classical Latin that disappeared in all places at some point between about AD 400 and AD 880 (perhaps at different times in the various locations). The exercise is interesting, and it may even be possible even to create a functioning, semi-artificial language out of VL... but even that fails to take account of dialectal differences that may have existed even in Classical times. As an example I might guess that the Celtic influence in Gaul, most of Iberia (but contrast Mozarabic), northern Italy, and probably Britain caused the shift of medial plosives and that those medial plosives remained intact in central and southern Italy and Dacia.

People may have been speaking VL, but the few literate people of the time were still writing Classical Latin until this Sequence and the Strasburg Oaths (unless one wishes to figure that Mozarabic is even older).

Of course, if anyone can find a significant VL text not recently constructed I would no longer concur with this opinion. Pbrower2a (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sequence of Saint Eulalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130090803/http://bibliotheque.valenciennes.fr/fr/bibliotheque-de-valenciennes/patrimoine/cantilene-de-sainte-eulalie/photographies.html to http://bibliotheque.valenciennes.fr/fr/bibliotheque-de-valenciennes/patrimoine/cantilene-de-sainte-eulalie/photographies.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512005627/http://bibliotheque.valenciennes.fr/fr/bibliotheque-de-valenciennes/patrimoine/cantilene-de-sainte-eulalie.html to http://bibliotheque.valenciennes.fr/fr/bibliotheque-de-valenciennes/patrimoine/cantilene-de-sainte-eulalie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links removed from Eulalia of Barcelona; may be appropriate here

I removed four external links from Eulalia of Barcelona, as they are about the Sequence and the predecessor work by Prudentius (both covered in this article), not about Eulalia of Barcelona herself. They don't seem to be present in this article. I'll list them here in case any editors feel they should be added here:

• Hymn to St. Eulalia in Prudentius, Peristephanon, Carmen III
  • Translation of the Prudentius hymn, by Robert J. Baker
• La Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie
• Translation of the Cantilène by Richard Stracke

TJRC (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

French translation

Is it necessary to have a French translation of the text? There is already one on the French wiki. The translation crowds out the English and Old French columns which as a result don't line up well (six-line discrepancy on my computer). If no one has any objections, I will remove the French version.--Excelsius (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the modern French column should go.

While we're at it, I think on the remaining two columns, the original should be on the left and the English translation on the right. TJRC (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference issue?

@TJRC:

"Undid (at least for the moment) revision 981543871 by Excelsius (talk); at least one of these, that I can verify, does not line up with the cited reference;"

That's odd. Which of those did not line up with the cited reference?

"are these your own translations?"

The ones from (Modern) French to English are, yes. The citations aren't mine, by the way - they were here before I made any edits. Let me see if I can check them and retrieve the original text.--Excelsius (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; I tried to cram as much as I could into the edit summary, but there's not always enough room to get an idea across.

First: thanks for the work you put into improving the article. I like what you're doing.

My only concern here is that this section is about the history of how Line 15 has been translated, in a couple cases into modern French. We have these two examples of how it has been so translated:

• "Elle n'en devint que plus forte dans ces principes religieux" -- cited to Hoffmann & Willems (1845, p. 34; so we can see that one online, and I can confirm it verifies.
• "Elle réplique en affirmant « l'élément » qui est sien [= sa virginité]" -- cited to print source Berger & Brasseur (2004, pp. 62, 72f), which I at least cannot verify, not having access to the text.

Since the section is about how the Line has been translated, I think those translations should remain. It is helpful to add re-translations of that modern French into English, but the translations into modern French themselves that are being discussed and are sourced, should remain. My suggestion is that you add your translations into English parenthetically alongside the sourced modern French translations, but leaving those sourced French translations.

TLDR version: keep the sourced translations into modern French and add your translations into English to aid readers of the English encyclopedia.

And before anyone goes there: an editor adding their own faithful translation does not count as original research. That's perfectly acceptable under WP:TRANSCRIPTION ("Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research"), and I think it's a valuable addition. (Alas, my own French is near non-existent, so I cannot assist with that.) TJRC (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see. Fair enough.--Excelsius (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription

@Excelsius: what would you think of moving the phonetic transcription to a central column between the Old French and English? I like the addition; I think it would be even better if it was adjacent to the text it represents.

I think we could kill the opening and closing brackets, too. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC:: Yeah, I think it would be useful to have it side-by-side with the original.

The brackets can be removed as long we specify somewhere that this is a "narrow" transcription

--Excelsius (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made the move. I'm not sure what a "narrow" transcription is, but I called it a "reconstructed phonetic transcription", basically stirring together the old section heading and its introductory line of text. Feel free to revise that in the interest of clarity or accuracy. TJRC (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The "Dialect section mentions vocalization of b before l in diaule (line 4, < diabolem). Shouldn't diaule be transcribed [diau̯lə] ([di̯au̯lə]?) rather than [diavlə]? 89.64.68.162 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is a point where the cited sources do not agree. We can't exactly present a 'hybrid transcription', per WP:SYNTH. Nicodene (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)