Talk:Neapolitan language

message: Classification of central italy dialects as "Neapolitan" 
I don't think the phrase:
as well as throughout most of southern Italy including the Gaeta and Sora districts of southern Lazio, the southern part of Ascoli province in Marche, most of Abruzzo, Molise, Basilicata, northern Calabria, and northern and central Apulia.
is completely correct.
I'm not a linguist, but i'm italian, and i live in central Italy; some parts of above categorisation seem to me not completely correct. 
In Gaeta and Sora, although spoken language being different from "Napoli's neapolitan", i can agree that "Neapolitan" is an enough good classification. I guess the same holds, at least to some extent, looking at Molise and Basilicata. Situation of Calabria is well explained below so i won't spend more words upon.
What i really do not understand is classifying as "Neapolitan" the italian dialects spoken in Apulia, Abruzzo and most of all Marche. Believe me, dialect of Marche has very little in common with Neapolitan... i guess also that most people from that region would "jump on their chairs" reading such a thing. The same holds about Abruzzo, where we should distinguish among at least 3 different families of dialects - see for reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IT , looking at "Italian" section. About Apulia, i honestly don't know whether to classify it as a Neapolitan derivative or a dialect of his own, but i think this deserves at least some serious discussion.
LINGUISTIC DEMARCATIONS
which forum? if it is the yahoo one run by carmine then yes, if not then no. so then how do we classify these languages? do we make a separate classification for northern calabrese? I am not a linguist so i don't know. The problem is there is no official language standard. there are differences between napulitano and n. calbrese too, just as there are differences in salerno napulitano, amalfi napulitano.....  
you make good points and comparisons though. 
--espo111 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not completely correct?

message: So, I can see why the Latin might be illustrative, but the untransliterated Greek?  Admittedly, Naples was a Greek-speaking city up to the 800's (or so) but...  I also changed the headings back from the Latin(?), that seemed like a particularly peculiar choice. There is also no need to wikify things multiple times (those terms had been linked earlier in the page). E. abu Filumena 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Latin and Greek "Our Father"s 

message: Since most discussions here involve the big differences between the regional languages of southern Italy (and that one cannot speak of "one" Calabrian variant), it seems useful to include the southern Calabrian variant of the Lord's Prayer too. Thus I've readded this text (half a year ago someone removed it for no apparent reason).
Moreover, since the Greek version does not add extra information (and might just confuse), I've removed it. If anyone can give me clear reason, it would be OK to readd it.
--JorisvS 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...it is the original version from which all others were translated.  That's a pretty good reason, I feel.  Also many words of Nnapulitano came directly from greek.  It is useful for orthographic, translatory, and lexical comparisons. I would readd.--Josh Rocchio 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of southern Calabrian and removal of ancient Greek (the Lord's Prayer) 

message: See Ethnologue entry for nap for details .
:-1. according to me, this is a mistake in Ethnologue. if you check the list of the languages spoken in Italy, no regional language is mentioned for the area Puglia/Molise/Abruzzo. also, have you ever heard Abruzzese people speak? they definitely speak a Neapolitan dialect, with a strange accent for one used to Naples' Neapolitan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrasca (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neapolitan is spoken in Campania and Northern Calabria only 

message: Excuse me, I'm Italian, and the concept of Napoletano provided here just makes me laugh. I really don't see any reason for this confusion between Neapolitan and the group of dialects of southern Italy (meridionale interno or intermedio) among which Neapolitan is just the major one.
Differences are so plain to us Italians, that our Wikipedia says: «It is spoken in Campania, specifically in the city of Naples, and in general influences southern dialects, especially in Apulia, Basilicata and Southern Latium».
No mention of central dialects, of course. I'm from Ascoli Province and know for sure how distant my dialect and Neapolitan are. There are so many differences that, when I went to Apulia, my accent was mistaken for Romanesco. --Llayumri 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it's a reference to the Kingdom of Naples and not the city of Naples. For the record, the Italian Wiki no longer says that. Rbritt518 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every language is a group or continuum of related dialects. Neapolitan is just another name for the language that Dante called il volgar pugliese, by which he meant the south-central dialects (dialetti meridionali). It is very difficult to choose a neutral name for a language that has no country. The last time these lands were united as one, it was under the Kingdom of Naples, thus the name. It has nothing to do with the dialect of Naples being "better" or more prestigious than the other dialects. It also does not imply that the dialects of, for example, Irpino, Abruzzo, Molise, or Puglia somehow 'descend' from the dialect of Naples. All of these dialects are sisters, and in fact they are extremely similar in terms of grammar - most of the differences are in the pronunciation. Ascoli is at the extreme North of the dialetti meridionali area and Apulia is at the extremem south, so of course those two accents/dialects will be most divergent from one another. And it makes sense that your dialect sounded like Romanesco to them, because Ascoli borders on the dialetti centrali area, which includes Romanesco (and, Romanesco is one of the dialetti centrali with the most southern features - some people even say it was once part of the dialetti meridionali before the massive influx of Northern immigrants during Italian unification). I am from Campobasso and I find my dialect very similar to Neapolitan. I also have friends from Foggia and from Pescara and our dialects are similar. In Pescara, I spoke to the owners of my hotel in my dialect and they answered in their dialect and they were almost the same. However, in Ancona several people thought I was speaking Russian. In that sense, I feel there is a very real demarcation between the  dialetti meridionali and the dialetti centrali. Whatever we chose to call this group, it is clear that the dialetti meridionali form one continuum or language. The name doesn't really matter, it's an issue of convenience and expediency.--70.48.143.156 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In an encyclopedia, it's also an issue of supplying accurate information. Staring with the cover term Neapolitan and its use here, this article misinforms the reader coming to this article looking for understanding of the linguistic landscape of Southern Italy.75.134.23.211 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meridionale intermedio = Neapolitan? Just ridiculous 

message: The article says: vedé (to see)
What tense is it? Present indicative 3rd singular? Why the accent, then? (see conjugation at Verbix)
Please be gentle, i'm not a big expert in Italian. Thanks in advance for your answer. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a little misunderstanding: vedé is Neapolitan, not Italian. :) --Llayumri 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you totally confused me. I thought that the Neapolitan form is supposed to be "veré". Or is it written vedé and pronounced veré? And in any case, what tense is it in Neapolitan? --Amir E. Aharoni 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the present infinitive (It. vedere, Engl. to see). I don't think Neapolitan has strict spelling or pronounciation rules, despite its literary tradition. Italian Wikipedia says rhotacism is "frequent". They probably use both forms, at least in spoken language. Anyway, I'm quite sure that writers prefer the -d- form: "senz' essere scetato, / senza sentì e vedé" (Di Giacomo). --Llayumri 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vedé 

message: Is this really rhotacism or flapping? Is the sound /r/ (the "Italian" "r") or /ɾ/ (the pronunciation of intervocalic "d" and "t" in some American accents that makes "metal" and "medal" homophones)? I am not at all familiar with Neapolitan, but it sounds like this might be flapping rather than true rhotacism. — Paul G 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's stronger than that.  It's an odd case in Neapolitan, traditionally, many of the words are written with "d"s but are pronounced as if they were "r"s.  The effect is strong enough that most native speakers who are unfamiliar with traditional literary Neapolitan write them straight away with "r"s, like "ra" for "da".-E. abu Filumena 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhotacism 

message: I changed the rating of the "Neapolitan language" from C to B, because I find that the article
*is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary;
*reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies;
*has a defined structure;
*is reasonably well-written;
*contains supporting materials where appropriate; and
*presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.</br>These are the criteria for a B rating.
However, JorisvS reverted the rating to C, explaining "Not really". Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather "really not", in fact, but I wanted to be mild. There is very little on its grammar. There is little on its phonology and what there is focused on orthography, rather than the other way around (a poor structure). The classification section is rife with tags and is not well structured. There is a list of dialects, but nothing about them. The list of dialects is in the distribution section, rather than in a dialects section. There is nothing on its history. There is very little literary usage and what there is is misplaced in the classification section. Doesn't come close to a B-class article. Compare also Italian language, which is far better, but still not rated B class. --JorisvS (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see your points. I cannot disagree. After a more careful examination from my part, I have to agree with your assessment. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality rating of article

message: Both "Napulitano" and "(’o n)napulitano" are currently unsourced, but at least the latter is consistent with both the explanation in this article and as used at the Neapolitan wiki. The stable version is "nnapulitano", not "Napulitano". , do you have a source for your change? --JorisvS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallo, and thanks for being on the talk page. Ooops, I did not notice that, thanks, and SOM! :-( About the rest, I can just repeat what are wikipedia policy: another wikipedia cannot be in any case a RS for a wikipedia article. If you see an unsourced info, you are entitled to add a citation missing template and/or to remove it (as I did now).  I propose that we find a RS (I am roman, write on wiki:it and know a couple of "partenopei" there, should not be difficult to find the truth. :-) In the meantime, feel free to restablished your preferred version and leave the citation template :-). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation-needed template is good, of course. I'll revert it, because that version at least has the advantage of being internally consistent. --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference from our literature:  Ferdinado Russo: 'O luciano d' 'o Rre. Page 34. 14th verse. Hope it helps! ;) --C.R. (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That cannot distinguish between them, unfortunately. The n is only doubled when directly preceded by the definite article. Therefore, unless the source clarifies the situation around the definite article, it is not useful in clarifying this. Moreover, that's from Wikisource, which means it is not at all a better reference than the native Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is a book published by an author with some authority, available online and easy to check. It does not matter if it is available at wikisource or books.google, the archive or the library of my town... or does it?. But yeah, I agree we need to come out with an "article + napulitano" out of the iceberg.--C.R. (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually why are we discussing about the article written in the autonym?... I don't see you use L'italiano, El idioma español or lu sicilianu in the autonym of similar language articles in the English wikipedia, so why should neapolitan have the article as an appendix? as you can see from the reference: without the original article you can also give a valid description in english, as you do for italian, spanish and sicilian already.--C.R. (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much the article as it is that the native name can also be nnapulitano when preceded by the definite article. --JorisvS (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an unreferenced grammar attempt for a language that has no (official) grammar. On the spoken language there is no difference wether it has an article or not (actually out of context I would transcribe it with one n without doubt, otherwise it would sound "in neapolitan" --> 'n napulitano --> "nnapulitano", and (opinion) I think this is the source of the confusion...), and again: to be coherent with the rest of the articles, this issue must be dealt within the grammar section and not in the first description (as you won't do it with the other languages). In the neapolitan wikipedia of course: we need to write it in neapolitan, so we need to use articles, prepositions, ecc... and the best grammar we know.--C.R. (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Every language has a grammar, regardless of the existence of any comprehensive descriptions or officialness. The native-language page uses it, though inconsistently, which is to be expected for a non-uniform language without a standardized form. I'm fully okay with (n)apulitano, or alternatively napulitano/nnapulitano if you think that's better. o nnapulitano and 'n napulitano should be easily distinguishable from context. --JorisvS (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native name 

message: It has always fascinated me how the French language in particular has been partly absorbed into Neapolitan. Some words are the same, like "buatta" adpted from French "boîte" (box, scatola in Italian). It would be really awesome to find some serious references to this influence, as well as to the Spanish one.
Vincenza1950 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Spanish and French on the Neapoletan language 

message: This article mixes the languoid "Neapolitan" as given in Ethnologue with the languoid "Neapolitan" as described in other linguistic sources, i.e. the languoid spoken in Neaples, or Neapolitan proper ("proper" is used here informally, I know no source making the distinction with "proper" and I know no academic publication using "Neapolitan" for the languoid given in Ethnologue). Please, check the literature: the entire voice is written based on the classification assumptions of Ethnologue, thus breaking the Neutral Point of View policy. I'm not against Ethnologue in principle, I'm just saying that it seems the other academic literature does not use the glossonym the same way as Ethnologue does. This should be mirrored in the article. (P.S. "languoid" and "glossonym" are not my inventions, see Language#Languoid for definitions and references). See the following:
* Posner, R. (1996). The romance languages. Cambridge University Press.
* Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., & Ledgeway, A. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages: Volume 1, Structures. Cambridge University Press.
* Alkire, T., & Rosen, C. (2010). Romance languages: a historical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
* Loporcaro, M. (2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani (Vol. 275). Laterza.
* Marcato, C. (2002). Dialetto, dialetti e italiano. Il mulino.
* Pellegrini, G. B. (1977). Carta dei dialetti d'Italia (Vol. 5). Firenze.
* Smith, J. C., & Maiden, M. (Eds.). (1995). Linguistic theory and the Romance languages (Vol. 122). John Benjamins Publishing.
* Harris, M., & Vincent, N. (Eds.). (2003). The romance languages. Routledge.
--SynConlanger (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This from treccani encyclopedia may provide a redundant reference. However, it comes with the typical Italian POV of considering whatever is not italian a dialect...--C.R. (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because in Italy the term "dialect" settled in academia with a sociolinguistic meaning. But both Italian and English works usually use the term "dialect" for the languages of Italy which are not Italian. 😊 --SynConlanger (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Find here your full redundant reference, however if we agree that this language passes the test of the duck... (with many stones thrown from Italy's Dante-centristic academic community) It may be worthy to open minds and search carefully sources out of Italy... rather than removing contents that may not have double or triple-proof source... :D (na frecciatina te l'aggia mannà sorry ^^)--C.R. (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link you provide leads to "Encyclopaedia of the Stateless Nations" (which is not a linguistic publication, btw) but I cannot see the content because it's a preview only. Would you mind giving us the references? I'm not saying "10 refs say so, so it must be it". I'm saying that the references I was able to find say what I said above: that Ethnologue classification must not be takes as the gold master and that Ethnologue's "Neapolitan language" and the thing spoken in Neaples are two different objects. That's all. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text:  P.S. about half of the references I cited above are in English. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry the edit conflict: I cannot check your books, but I don't believe they state explicitly that "Neapolitan is a dialect of Italian" as e.g. "Occitan is a dialect of French", when you can find such a reference... I will be very surprised...--C.R. (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: ...I can see it though... wait...check here: It is surprisingly precise, so I would not discard they had linguists in order to check it...
--More references are already on the text, you can check them easily... and I propose to remove the "lack of references" tag.--C.R. (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: As I said above, the confusion here is between "Neapolitan-Calabreze" and "Neapolitan dialect". Although, since other references refer to the two languoids in a different manner, that must be reflected in the article here. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. 😊 --SynConlanger (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: P.S. as for the citation tag, there is still too much text unreferenced in the article so I'm against the removal. Moreover, some of the referenced text is reference in a manipulated way. Like citing the Carta by Pellegrini, where "Lingua Napoletana" does not appear at all. And so on and so forth. --SynConlanger (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your interpretation, Neapolitan from Naples has too much relative weight (recognition and mass media presence)... we must live with it, if some sources don't mention the other variants that's not a reason to state that the linguistic continuum of the so called "Neapolitan-Calabreze" begins in Portici and finishes in Piedigrotta... If you check the first reference I provided from treccani: it says EXACTLY the same about "Neapolitan-Calabreze" as for "Dialetti meridionali"... (and it never says they are dialects of the italian).... so how will you call this languoid honestly, tell me... how are we coherent in wikipedia? Occitan language is called as it is... even if you will find many sources calling it Aranese or Provençal dialect... those are localisms... and you will know  as good as me that saying neapolitan is a language is a typical controversial topic in italy, so the academics (despite of not being NPOV) avoid this definition as a language, ... as in treccani... where the author avoids clearly to state of which language is talking about...--C.R. (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon that from the Grammar chapter on, the article is talking about the Neapolitan from Naples-Naples. Any proposal on how re-word and/or notice it I would be happy to hear.--C.R. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neapolitan and Neapolitan 

message: Shouldn't this be "gemination"? -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doubling" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Neapolitan language. 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/20110727043316/http://www.denaro.it/VisArticolo.aspx?IdArt=548026 to http://www.denaro.it/VisArticolo.aspx?IdArt=548026
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003072247/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/flash/regionalok.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/flash/regionalok.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606222954/http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/MFo_16_Italia.pdf to http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/MFo_16_Italia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621074948/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Neapolitan/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Neapolitan/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051107211735/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/mappe/f_dialetti.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/mappe/f_dialetti.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.lastoriadinapoli.it/vocab.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.torreomnia.com/Testi/argenziano/dizionario/presentazione.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I have never before come across the word sect used as a technical term of linguistics. Does anyone have better information than I have on this matter? It did cross my mind that perhaps the editor who added this word actually meant set. If so, would not group be better? LynwoodF (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just a typo.Dk1919 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am inclined to agree, so I think I shall change the word to group. By the way, it is nice to meet a Sardinian speaker, albeit only electronically. I know very little Sardinian, but I did once do some online research on the pocket of Ligurian in the south-west. Best wishes, LynwoodF (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   A sect of closely related dialects? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neapolitan language (). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neapolitan language () listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The map is quite nice, but in its current location it’s difficult to compare the the detailed list of dialects/languages. Could we move it next to them and float it to the side? babbage (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we move the dialect map next to the list from the infobox? 

message: I changed the glottoname in the InfoBox. It assigned the glossonym "Neapolitan" to Glottocode [neap1235], but the glossonym assigned to that code on Glottolog is "Continental Southern Italian" and not "Neapolitan". If you search "Neapolitan" on Glottolog using the search field, what you get is "No matching languoids found for name part "neapolitan"". The glossonym "Napoletano" is assigned to the code [napo1241] and is a sub-languoid of the languoid "Central Southern Italian [neap1235]". --SynConlanger (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental Souther Italian (Glottolog) 

message: This article mixes up three discrete languoids: 1) the very Neapolitan language, which was co-official (besides Latin) within the Kingdom of Naples in 1442–1501, and was then largely spoken in that Kingdom until Italian unification; 2) the intermediate southern Italian dialects (the map actually refers to them), which stem straightforwardly from Latin and not from the Neapolitan language; 3) the Neapolitan dialect currently spoken within the metropolitan city of Naples.
I would therefore propose splitting the current article into three ones, similarly to what Italian Wikipedia does (:it:Lingua napoletana, :it:Dialetti italiani meridionali, :it:Dialetto napoletano).-- 3knolls (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to disagree, the term "dialect" to describe the language currently spoken in Naples is extremely problematic. A tripartite division of that kind is based more on linguistic ideology than anything else.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit confusing 

message: So I was reading Molise's page in English, and the page gives the pronunciation for the region's name in... Neapolitan. I was like, what the? I click on Neapolitan, and I find out... That this page is the stuff of nightmares. Not even a single soul in the scientific literature calls Southern Italo-Romance 'Neapolitan'. No. one. Where does this definition even come from? Neapolitan is just one of the Southern Italo-Romance languages. This page's quality is really below zero - and I am afraid that my students will learn wrong things from it. Wikipedia is truly influential - please do a better job. Ophoryce (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I understand that during the existence of the Kingdom of Naples everything was 'Neapolitan' in the sense of belonging to the Neapolitan Kingdom. But since this is not the case anymore, the contemporary reader will probably not get the reference, and will just assume that all Southern Italo-Romance is 'Neapolitan'. Ophoryce (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said: linguist's nightmare, indeed, and also (thus) a nightmare for a naive reader. The second paragraph of the article tries to warn people what they're getting into, but that shouldn't be necessary. The focus throughout should be the language of Naples, with perhaps a couple of paragraphs at some point about the usage of the label in the historical-political sense, clarifying that in actual terms of language, it's at best very misleading. -- For another example of mislabeling that can both confound and misinform readers, perhaps have your students check out Venetian (Venetan), including the discussion of labeling in talk. From Trieste to Verona, it's all Venetian! Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But this makes more sense, since Venetian and Venetan (Veneziano e Veneto) are two very similar words, while referring to Southern Italian languages as to Neapolitan is just misleading (a true neapolitan would say: "Che c'azzecca? :-))" Alex2006 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough that there's no good (linguistic) reason to label most of`the dialetti meridionali Neapolitan. For Venetian and Venetan, though, one could argue that precisely because the terms are similar, it's necessary to be careful to use them accurately. And certainly not translate falsely, i.e. render veneto as Venetian when Venetan is clearly the meaning of the original. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a veneto can tell you after hearing a couple of words where another veneto comes from. But coming back to napoletano, there is no other way to name the meridional dialects? Alex2006 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various labels available, depending on what the purpose of the labeling is. Neapolitan/napoletano is the least satisfactory of labels that I can think of. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree - I wonder when the content of the page will reflect that? Ophoryce (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Good point. Perhaps the discussion here should be of the need to "move" (re-title) or not. The December 2020 suggestion to split this into three articles seems to have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because two of the three are engraved invitations to (endless, irresolvable) quibbling over language/dialect. Seems to me that the simpler solution would be to edit this article into what would be expected from a linguistic point of view, i.e. the language of Naples and immediate vicinity. This might include a reasonably brief section on the much wider historical-political use of the label, and it would entail other editing such as removing the list under The following dialects constitute Neapolitan, perhaps employing it with an appropriate label in the article Languages of Italy, or massaged and expanded within an eventual article Southern Italian languages. Whatever the solution, the main point is that Neapolitan should concentrate on actual napoletano and not leave readers with untenable linguistic notions. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if we move, the move should be to "Southern Italian X", where X could be Dialects or Languages. This will make room for an article about Napoletano as almost everyone (including the Enciclopedia Italiana) understand it. But since it seems that the move is impossible, due to the large patrol of defenders of the Regno al di qua del faro that populate these pages, the only possible solution is to mutilate the article in the sense suggested above, letting time heal the wounds. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a linguist's nightmare 

message: Currently, the article claims the they become lenis voiced after a nasal and remain fortis voiceless everywhere else. I don't know how representative the pronunciation of popular singers is, but my impression is that they can have both pronunciations in all positions. Perhaps these stops are lenis with variable voicing? 89.64.69.62 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  short fortis stops: voice onset time? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. However, while support did not emerge for moving the existing article to the proposed title, there does appear to be a rough consensus that a content split would be helpful for distinguishing the language of the immediate Naples area from the broader category of Southern Italian languages and dialects. (non-admin closure)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neapolitan language →  – By looking at this talk page (see , , , ), it seems that it could be helpful if we let the community discuss in an orderly way about whether to move the content of this article (or significant parts of it) to "Southern Italian languages" (or "Southern Italian dialects", please state and motivate your preference).
The main issue is that currently this article appears to be about an overlap of two or more languoids, which makes a WP:PRECISE title hard to assess.
Therefore, a content split could be performed, e.g. keeping Neapolitan language or Neapolitan dialect as the article containing what is strictly related to the language spoken in the area of Naples and Campania.
Please motivate your statements and keep in mind WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Yakme (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 January 2023 

message: As has been said quite a few times already, calling all dialetti alto-meridionali "Neapolitan language" is highly problematic from a linguistic perspective. The confusion stems from the fact that the ISO-639-3 code for this language continuum / group of dialects is "nap" and Glottocode labels it "Neapolitan" for lack of a better word. This goes against the consensus in Romance linguistics, that call these dialetti (local lects that are not local dialects of Italian, as per the Italian sociolinguistic definition) . Napoletano/napulitano/Neapolitan is only the dialetto of the city of Naples. Sources:
* Nicola De Blasi 2006, Profilo linguistico della Campania
* Adam Ledgeway 2009, Grammatica diacronica del napoletano
* Michele Loporcaro 2009, Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani
* Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden 2016, The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages
* Pietro Maturi 2023, Napoli e la Campania
I know this has been said a million times, but the news is that even UNESCO has now stopped calling ISO-693-3 "Neapolitan" and calls it "Continental Southern Italian": https://en.wal.unesco.org/languages/continental-southern-italian.
I think this is enough to reopen the move discussion? We could follow UNESCO nomenclature and invert the redirect from Continental Southern Italian. CRYptex talk 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the news. Perhaps progress can be made? Unfortunately, Continental Southern Italian is probably troublesome for anglophones, in that it can so easily be read to mean varieties of Italian, i.e. of italiano regionale. I don't know of a good label, but Southern Italo-Romance is at least accurate (with or without Continental, depending on consensus re Sicilian). Southern Italian Dialects might suit Wikipedia better, though given a) that anglophones tend not to be at all familiar with the linguistic landscape of Italy, and b) that dialect is so often used in English to mean 'variety of' (thus Italian dialects = dialects of Italian likely as default reading), the lead would have to make clear what dialect/dialetto means in the context of Italy. -- In any case, encouraging news from UNESCO. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As linguistic layman: I am strongly disinclined to invent a new name for Wikipedia. If the article is moved, it should absolutely be moved to something that is the widespread name accepted among linguists. Either that or common usage if there is such a thing here (as in some fields of expertise, there is a never-ending fascination with replacing perfectly good names that mean something to the average person with sterile, multi-word, technical jargon). In short, if Neapolitan is no longer used by the substantial majority experts, and there is no pre-existing WP:COMMONNAME, then we are constrained to adopt the widely accepted name among experts. Ergo Sum  23:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergo Sum, I agree with you 100%. There seems to be a misunderstanding, though: there has been no invention of terms here. Unfortunately, there is no single label used by the majority of linguists (of which I am one) for the zone in question, thus the discussion here. If forced to use a term in a scholarly paper, I'd opt for Southern Italo-Romance, which is accurate typologically (if somewhat vague geographically), often seen and heard, and would be understood as intended by those who read such publications, i.e. most crucially as not the Italian of the south of Italy, but the indigenous Romance lects of the area. Southern Italian Dialects might be more apt for the much more general Wikipedia readership (with the caveat noted), and it matches common usage in Italy, dialetti italiani meridionali. There may be other frequent labels as well, that for some reason just don't come to mind. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I know people might not agree with me, but Continental Southern Italian dialects is the name I would prefer, as these varieties are probably almost always considered a dialect cluster or continuum instead of a cohesive language with dialects within it. Language officialization unfortunately doesn't help with naming things here, and the consensus among linguists is basically absent because some don't even regard Italy's regional languages as languages, or, more often, they think that it doesn't matter what you call them. Neapolitan-Calabrese is problematic because these dialects are not only spoken in Naples or Calabria. Anyway, it's important to state clearly that even though "Italian" is in the name, these are not dialects of Italian, so to avoid confusion among people who don't know much about the subject. Teangacha (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Either sounds good to me, though I would hope languages rather than language would finish off the title, to try to nudge people away from assuming that the topic is Italian as spoken in Southern Italy. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on why this page shouldn't be called "Neapolitan language"