Oh, well: Torturados, encarcelados y multados por hablar en gallego (the last square).
Back then, the archbishop of Santiago de Compostela was Galician himself. Franco himself was Galician too.The Archbishopric of Santiago de Compostela declared in 1965 that the vulgar language of Galicia was Castilian
I think that the 90% refers to those who understood Galician, rather than L1 speakers.at that time probably 90% of Galicians were L1 speakers of Galician!
Yes. And both could speak Galician. But, apparently, their career came first, if you know what I mean.Back then, the archbishop of Santiago de Compostela was Galician himself. Franco himself was Galician too.
Probably Xaime Xeixas didn't ask for permission. Just two years later a journal published an open letter with 1200 signatories asking for masses in Galician... The journal (El Correo Gallego) was admonished (I don't know if fined), as well as La Voz de Galician for supporting this demand. It was as a consequence of the growing debate that Galician was allowed.P.S.: The first mass in Galician was held in July 25th 1965 by Xaime Xeixas.
Galicia had basically no immigration at that moment, and most of the growing urban population had been raised in the rural. 90% L1 is not excessive.I think that the 90% refers to those who understood Galician, rather than L1 speakers.
All what I meant was that the ones in charge who neglected Galician weren't from abroad.Yes. And both could speak Galician. But, apparently, their career came first, if you know what I mean.
The mass was authorized by Cardinal Quiroga Palacios who was the archbishop of Santiago de Compostela. A year later, Manuel Espina and José Morente held mass in Galician too (in the church of the Capuchinas in Coruña) and it became the first fixed mass in Galician (authorized by Quiroga Palacios too).Probably Xaime Xeixas didn't ask for permission.
I don't have right now data from the 60's but in 1985, just 44% of EGB students (6-14 y.o.) had Galician as their mother tongue.Galicia had basically no immigration at that moment, and most of the growing urban population had been raised in the rural. 90% L1 is not excessive.
And in Spain, it started a few months later, in November 1966 (the one that I quoted in post 105).The first regular mass in Galician was held in Buenos Aires since 1966.
Yep. That's my suburban gen-x generation. But the generation of my parents, raised mostly in the rural, were mostly L1 Galician speakers.I don't have right now data from the 60's but in 1985, just 44% of EGB students (6-14 y.o.) had Galician as their mother tongue.
That's not as high as 90%. :)For example, in 2003 76% of those 65 and older were raised in Galician
Sorry. I totally overlooked those who claimed to be raised both in Galician and Spanish. :( They aren't 10% but 9% but it's not relevant.Come on: 76+10% = 86%!
Dudo que hubiese un único latín vulgar en Hispania. Es muy probable que la dualidad Citerior-Ulterior, Tarraconense-Bética, ya implicara distinciones desde casi su inicio, dadas las diferencias en el sustrato prerromano y en la mayor o menor influencia de Roma por la distancia.2. La fecha en que el latín vulgar de Hispania (diatópica y diastráticamente diferenciado) comenzó a convertirse en otra cosa (¿ss. III-V? ¿s. VIII?).
Considero que la tesis de que el español surge de la convergencia de castellano, leonés y aragonés quedó obsoleta tiempo ha.Los dominios aragonés y leonés y su disolución en el castellano (el leonés), en lo que ya se podría llamar español y el aragonés.
El idioma está reconocido oficialmente (que no significa que goce de oficialidad territorial) y cuenta por fin, después de un proceso iniciado en los setenta, con institución reconocida oficialmente (el Instituto de l'Aragonés, como sección de l'Academia Aragonesa de la Lengua) y una normativa ortográfica oficial (teóricamente surgida de un consenso -no unánime- entre las tres o cuatro ortografías principales con que se ha escrito el idioma en las últimas décadas). Hay publicaciones recientes en lo que respecta a gramática y diccionario con viso de establecerse como normativos.el aragonés está normativizándose (si ya no lo está)
No entiendo bien lo de catalán español de Aragón. Las "lenguas de frontera" en el este peninsular se producen entre el catalán y el aragonés, sobre todo en la Ribagorza; de ahí abajo, es fácil establecer una frontera entre cuál municipio habla catalán y cuál español.10. Las lenguas de frontera: portugués/español, portugués/gallego, portugués/leonés, catalán español de Aragón, catalan español de Castilla la Nueva y Murcia.
Aunque puedan encontrarse determinados factores en común, es mucho mayor la proximidad al macrogrupo galorromance. El apócope generalizado de la terminación masculina es una isoglosa demasiado significativa a mi parecer.Pienso que los idiomas en occitanoromanza(Gascón, Provenzal, Catalan etcétera) son idiomas de Iberoromance
A fala de Xálima.Gallegoportugués del Jálama o lagarteiro-mañego-valverdeño (Variedad gallegoportuguesa del NO extremeño)
Not really. Castellano should be restricted to the areas of Castilla (Castile) Northern of the Central System. BTW, Zamora isn't Castilla but León, so not among the areas called Castilla (Castile).Whilst ideally the word "castellano" should be restricted to the form of Spanish spoken in the areas actually called "Castilla", quite apart from the fact that in some of those areas (for example in Zamora)
You can follow another path crossing Xálima Valley, El Rebollar, Spanish-Speaking Salamanca, Castile, La Rioja, Navarre, Northern Aragon and Catalonia.The Romance continuum between Portugal and France can only be felt through a certain path, crossing Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, and then northern Aragon and Catalonia.
Solo una parte de las provincias de Valladolid y Palencia fue leonesa. La otra fue castellana.En lo que fue el antiguo reino de León hay acción de sustrato (atenuada en Valladolid y Palencia
Dejando a un lado que Castilla la Nueva pasó a la historia, no lo ubico así que me lo tendrás que ubicar.catalan español de Castilla la Nueva
Hoy en día sí que hay. Ahí tienes fereka, por ejemplo.No es por enredar, pero en vasco no hay, ni, probablemente, hubo "f" /f/
Ya se ha dicho en los mensajes 94, 95 y 98 que desde el principio hubo misas en catalán y en algún otro mensaje di la fechas de las primeras en gallego. Quiero añadir que la primera misa en euskera se dio en 1959; es decir, antes del Concilio Vaticano II. Como en el rito romano no se podían hacer misas en lenguas vernáculas, la misa fue dada por un sacerdote católico de rito greco-melquita que, además, no era euskaldún, pero como apasionado de las lenguas aceptó la propuesta que le hicieron sacerdotes euskaldunes de rito romano que no podían celebrar aún en lengua vernácula puesto que en todo el orbe católico romano era obligatorio el uso del latín en la liturgia.Siempre me he preguntado si, allá en los años sesenta, cuando la iglesia católica dejó la liturgía en latín para pasar a las lenguas nacionales, si se permitió, en España, que las misas fueran en catalán, gallego, vasco, etc.
En 1971, hubo un programa del NO-DO (NO-DO - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre) en el que se hablaba en uno de los reportajes de la introducción de instrumentos tradicionales en la celebración de las misas en el que se tomó de ejemplo una parroquia vasca y en los fragmentos de misa que ilustraban la noticia se puede ver cómo la misa se celebraba en euskera y en el NO-DO la dejaron tal cual (sin doblarla al castellano y sin traducirla ni subtitularla). Si te interesa, puedes buscarlo en internet que todo, o casi todo, el NO-DO está digitalizado y disponible.Si se hizo ¿cómo lo veía el régimen de entonces?
Sí. Pero lo de «fala» me parece lo mismo que «fabla», «bable», «patués», etc. Términos informales que cumplen su papel a nivel popular pero que no resultan apropiados como designación en un contexto lingüístico.A fala de Xálima.
Bueno, pues xalimegu.Términos informales que cumplen su papel a nivel popular pero que no resultan apropiados como designación en un contexto lingüístico.
Regarding the languages in Iberia, I still doubt about the way to classify Aragonese properly. The problem with it is that, eastwards from the western part of the Ordesa Valley, it certainly looks Southern Gallo-Romance transitional into Ibero-Romance more than the other way round. Which is why Aragonese Ribagorzan is even regarded by some as an independent system between proper Aragonese and Western Catalan. In my opinion, though, it is part of Aragonese, but the high number of isoglosses between Aragonese Ribagorzan and the rest of the language clearly justifies a first-level dialectal split between both varieties.No one can disagree that each of the macrogroups set out in post 113 forms a cohesive unit. However, it is arguable that all the varieties specified (as well as others not listed) form a single macrogroup.
I wouldn't be so sure. It may depend on the dialect. Benasqués can undoubtely be bracket with Catalan. OTOH, Cheso is debatable.If your classification is based on modern varieties it may be reasonable to bracket Aragonese with Catalan.
HelloORIENTAL- Romance retopadano o cisalpino(Padano o lombardo-véneto...
That is true. There is no full agreement on how to classify any language family, but the Romance one is particularly complex for a variety of reasons. In fact, when there is no agreement to begin with on how many Romance languages are there -between one and fifty would be the most educated guess-, classifying them becomes certainly difficult.My reading tells me that there is no agreement on how to classify Romance languages.
Problems with terminology are always a thing. And linguistic boundaries not being the same as political ones is common everywhere.The article on Spanish in the same book points out that the names traditionally assigned to the Romance varieties of Spain correspond to the medieval kingdoms of northern Spain, and not to linguistic boundaries.
Given the pervasive influence of Spanish upon Aragonese for the last seven centuries, I'd rather say the opposite.If your classification is based on modern varieties it may be reasonable to bracket Aragonese with Catalan.
The continuum exists from Lisbon to Lecce.However, just because today there may be a perceived break between Aragonese and Castilian does not mean that there was not once a clear dialect continuum connecting them.
I admit I wanted to focus on the Iberian section of it, being the main theme of the thread. I'm aware that considering both the so-called Gallo-Italic group and the Rhaeto-Romance one part of the same macrogroup is far from unanymous consensus, and that the specifities of Venetian also render it out of the group in many classifications. This is certainly interesting and probably theme for a different thread. I must say, though, I tend not to like terms such as Gallo-Italic or Gallo-Iberic, because they seem to portray the groups as a mixture of two poles instead of groups in its own right.Hello
Your terminology does not fully comply with the one currently adopted in this country.
According to our linguists, the first five varieties you list are called 'Gallo-Italic/Gallo-Romance',
while the last three are in fact 'Reto-Romance', as you correctly wrote (but we say 'Friulano', not Friuliano).
Valpuesta is in Burgos. Surrounded to the North, East and West by Araba but in Burgos.Valpuesta, in a valley between Burgos and Alava)
It depends. In written form, Portuguese may be easier to understand than Italian. Orally, there may be African dialects of Portuguese easier to understand than Italian but definitely, that's not the case of any of the varieties of European Portuguese.the fact that a Spanish speaker can more readily understand Italian than the more genetically closer Portuguese.
I should have made it clear that I was referring to spoken language.It depends. In written form, Portuguese may be easier to understand than Italian. Orally, there may be African dialects of Portuguese easier to understand than Italian but definitely, that's not the case of any of the varieties of European Portuguese.
Pardon me, but that's a false impression. 'Gallo-Italic' usually means 'dialects/local languages' deriving from how Gauls (and now their descendants) inhabiting Northern Italy used to (or still do) pronounce the Latin language imported by the Romans (a way similar to what Gauls of France did: as a matter of fact, there are innumerable analogies between Gallo-Italic 'dialects' and French).because they seem to portray the groups as a mixture of two poles instead of groups in its own right.
Not quite. See Cisalpine Gaul - Wikipedia"Gallo-" simply referred to "French"
Ciao. The one in #113 is also called a "second, less influential tradition" in Tamburelli, Brasca (2018).Your terminology does not fully comply with the one currently adopted in this country
Regarding Aragonese -I don't know that much about Venetian-, it is not about 'joining French', because French (Northern Gallo-Romance in general) is the most deviant form of the macro-group. If anything, Aragonese would be in the Southern Gallo-Romance group, alongside Catalan, Gascon and Occitan, and would logically be the most transitional of them all into Spanish and NE Mozarabic.To be honest, and to answer both, I see no path for separating Old Venetian or Old Aragonese, to join French instead.
In English "Gallo-" is a combining form meaning, according to context, French or Gaulish/Gallic.Not quite. See Cisalpine Gaul - Wikipedia
Aragonese as a whole may not be a perfect candidate for the Southern Gallo-Romance group, but it definitely doesn't belong in the West Ibero-Romance group either.
Cf. OSp. Et quando vine et lo vide ayer, Cuando lo sopo mio Cid, etc. Verbal morph. as more conservative, lacking older texts.The Aragonese tendency to preservation
:thumbsup:In English "Gallo-" is a combining form meaning, according to context, French or Gaulish/Gallic.
Aragonese as in the Romance language spoken in Upper Aragon for more than a thousand years, constituted by a series of traits and lexikon that set it apart from the rest of languages around it.Whether that is the case has to depend on what "Aragonese" covers. What is being compared with what?
Hi. The paper makes it seem as if Upper Aragonese as a whole did that. That semipalatalization is restricted to Ribagorzan Aragonese. And I'd say it's a rather late evolution.Hello. If that is the chosen metric, for ex. Holt 1996 regards Upper Aragonese (3)
ᴄʟ ᴄʟᴀᴠᴇ cllau [kʎ] ‘key’ᴘʟ ᴘʟᴏᴠᴇʀᴇ pllover [pʎ] ‘to rain’ꜰʟ ꜰʟᴀᴍᴍᴀ fllama [fʎ] ‘flame’
as an "intermediate stage." Implying a network for modern Aragonese with these inherited outcomes partially replaced.
I'm aware Old Spanish had reflexes from IBI. This is why I mentioned the 'loss' of these pronouns as a trait. Its presence in words like hay is a fossilization.In Aragonese ¿Qué y has metíu en ixe guiso?, A Benasque no y van llegá (Guille, Enguita 2022, p. 455), you would also see that y as ‘proof’ for Sp. estoy or voy.
I won’t comment now on the origin of the go-past form, but from what I recall in Eastern Aragonese it is indeed regarded as a late introduction.But van llegá as ‘late’, given how Catalan also likely took it from Occitan. See "the go-past was fully productive in Occitan by the turn of the 13th century," but "marginal" in 14th c. Catalan (Jacobs 2011, p. 243).
The Aragonese tendency to preservation of intervocalic stops not only affects the voiceless ones, but also the voiced ones: GENGIVA > Ar. cheniva, Es. encía; LIXIVA > Ar. leixiva, Es. lejía; CALIVU > Ar. calivo, Ct. caliu; RADERE > Ar. rader, Es. raer; RIDERE > Ar. redir (rido, rides...; se'n rediba de tot), Es. reír (río, ríes...; se reía de todo); TAEDA > Ar. tieda, Es. tea, Ct. teia; CAUDA > Ar. coda, Ct. cua/coa. In a way, it is remarkable but coherent for Aragonese to retain the -B- in all forms of the imperfect tense.Se pelieron por la broya, que adobada con chichons y currusquez de pan rustiu lis parezeba cosa güena (ap. Nagore 1994: 129).
Aragonese settlers around Murcia also left tiniba (Sp. tenía, Lgdc. Oc. teniè, Bord. Oc. tenèbe, It. tenéva). I would take Eastern Iberian first as more ‘Italianate’ in these parezeba or siedes outcomes, then later as more Occitan-like.
Berceo must be taken with a pinch of salt, though, as Riojano was highly transitional between Castilian and Aragonese. And even if regarded as the first known poet in Castilian, his writings reveal many Navarro-Aragonesish solutions.In Berceo you also find ende.
Remember that the medieval Aragonese scripta are mostly based on a sort of Lower Aragonese levelled variety, gradually Castilianized, often far from the spoken solutions in the north.Old texts from Valencia also have parts that may look ‘Spanish-like’, because they are ‘Aragonese-like’, within its Catalan.
Funnily, in the pre-Roman Celtiberian Peninsula, the Celts lived in the West and Central areas while the Iberian peoples lived along the Eastern shore. Yet linguists give the name of ‘Ibero-Romance’ to the Portuguese-Spanish group, instead of a probably more accurate term like Celto-Hispanic Romance. In matters of terminology, nobody is ever satisfied.:thumbsup:
Exactly. There were Gauls also on our side of the Alps (Northern Italy), as mentioned
Aragonese as in the Romance language spoken in Upper Aragon for more than a thousand years, constituted by a series of traits and lexikon that set it apart from the rest of languages around it.
From the birth of the language to the present day. There is no need to think that an autochthonous solution which comes straight from Latin and has survived to this day was not already there 1,000 years ago. We can apply the logic of evolution (FACTU > fayto > feyto) but we can also find written instances of these traits.That presumably refers to the present day.
All languages are abstractions that consist of several dialects. But there is an underlying structure that define it in comparison to other ones. In the case of Aragonese, historically, from Lower Rioja to Ribagorza. Nowadays, only in Upper Aragon. Next century, only in books, as it's likely the most endangered language in Europe."Aragonese as in the Romance language spoken in Upper Aragon" is an abstraction as it consists of several dialects.
It does not cover all possibilities. And claiming for a reductio ad nihilum makes no sense either, as we could say the same of any language.It is something like a Platonic idea in that it covers all possibilities.
We are obviously comparing the most ‘standard’, prevailing or defining forms of each language for the most part, as long as they really characterize it. (By this, I mean that most native Aragonese speakers say the Spanish ocho instead of the genuine ueito, for instance, so it has to be taken into account) Or, even if the Ribagorzan variety is the most spoken these days, it clearly shows the transition into Western Catalan, either from the start or because of constant influence through the centuries, so several solutions cannot be regarded in the same way, at least from a historically ‘genetic’ stance. This is why it is important to have a general view of the language.So, is it the written standards of Castilian, Aragonese and Catalan which are being compared?
This is why the study of texts is also very important. If a language is only studied synchronically and not diachronically, we won’t be able to get the global picture and determine its genetics. This is precisely what has debunked the Glosas Emilianenses as the first ‘Old Castiian/Spanish’ text, as it clearly presents Navarrese-Aragonese features.If looking to establish genetic relatedness, history has to be taken into account. In that respect the first thing to note is that where today Castilian meets Aragonese there is no dialect continuum as the intervening dialects have been lost, whereas where Aragonese meets Catalan there are transitional dialects. Aragonese is part of the larger group Navarro-Aragonese. Divide Navarro-Aragonese into the Romance language spoken in Upper Aragon ("Aragonese") and all other dialects of Navarro-Aragonese ("Navarrese Plus"). It seems there are no extant varieties of Navarrese Plus. If there are some records going back centuries of Navarrese they will not tell us what all the dialects were like. That is something we need to know in order to establish whether there was once a dialect continuum from Castilian to Aragonese to Catalan. It is not unreasonable to hypothesise there was assuming it was the case (as it is more often than not) that you always understand them in the next village. Further, it seems that the westernmost dialects of Aragonese have more Castilian features than the easternmost dialects. Whilst influence from Castilian cannot be ruled out in the west and Catalan in the east, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the trend continued so that Navarrese Plus had even more Castilian features. Finally, if there was never a dialect continuum between Castilian and Navarro-Aragonese would it not be the only instance in the Romance speaking area where there was no dialect continuum in geographically adjacent zones?
But in agreement with Galician feito.1) people say feito in Ansó (Western Arag.), Panticosa (Central Arag.) or Chistau (Eastern Arag.), in stark contrast to Spanish hecho, Catalan fet, Gascon hèit or Occitan fait/fach
That just about sums up the problem!But in agreement with Galician feito.
But in agreement with Galician feito.
Galician-Portuguese isn't in straight contact, or even in the area, with Aragonese. It’s a concomitance. Like Castilian and Languedocian concomitance in the -IT- > -CH- (hecho, fach). It's a common evolution. To put another obvious example, Catalan isn't in contact at all with Romanian, but has got concomitances, and in words that are common (cap 'head', foc 'fire', nas 'nose', ou 'egg', bou 'ox', nou 'new', suc 'juice') due to common features like masculine -O drop or -OVU/OVE > -OU.That just about sums up the problem!
To my knowledge, there are not enough studies that are thorough enough on this field in order to determine this relationship or a more accurate classification. There are some about the affinities of Aragonese with (Western) Catalan and Gascon, and a few attempts at a general classification, but nothing done at a bigger scale as is the case for other Romance languages.Those who have studied the question by investigating in depth cannot agree the precise relationship of Aragonese to Castilian and/or Catalan.
