Talk:Tuscan dialect

message: Isn't it typical of Florence to change intervocalic k to kh (I am not indicating an aspiration but a velar?), Michele [mikhele]? --Error 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no :) I mean, if Michele is pronounced in Florentine dialect, the 'ch' is a [h]. In case you've heard a Tuscan speaking Italian with a non-Tuscan Italian or with a foreigner, you might have heard the velar [kh]. This is typical for Tuscans when they try to speak proper Italian. Generally it is hard for us (I know it being myself Tuscan) to pronounce the 'ch' in Michele as a [k], so we try to get closer to it by pronouncing it as [kh] :) --Rutja76(talk to me!) 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: k to kh

message: Is it a rule the correspondence of Florentine Uffizi for Italian ufficci? --Error 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uffizi is just an archaic italian form. The modern italian is uffici (not ufficci), and we pronounce it with the soft c. Sergio Ballestrero 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ci to zi

message: I think in the morphology section should be added the use of punto as a negative form. --Fertuno 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "punto" 

message: Being italian and from Florence I'd like to point out that "codesto" is the only correct italian form to reference an object far from the speaker and near to the listener. Using "questo"(this) or "quello"(that) in place of codesto(which can't be literally translated to english as far as I know) should be considered a grammatical error in italian. The fact that tuscan people are the only people still respecting this rule does not diminish the rule importance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.176.55 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. Every, I say every vocabulary say that 'codesto' is a "Literary or Tuscan" form in standard Italian. This doesn't mean it is not correct of course. It pretty much means the contrary: it is Italian spoken at its best, as it is often the case with Tuscans. Still, it is not common elsewhere. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Codesto" is not an exception but the real correct italian 

message: Even if this article should be at Tuscan language and not dialect (which is highly POV, if you ask me), capitalizing the L is incorrect. —Wiki Wikardo 14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: This entire article needs to be slapped with a big citation needed header. Even if the status of this dialect weren't contentious in Italy, the sheer lack of citations would still be a huge problem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Shevat 5775 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for slapping -- just add citations. Giannelli's book will supply precise page references for almost everything that needs citation. It's not clear what you mean by "the status of this dialect" being "contentious", but that can be cleared up by some reading of the specialist literature.96.42.57.164 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severely lacking in citations  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tuscan dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080506030444/http://www.maldura.unipd.it:80/romanistica/viale/lezione_diatopia/ to http://www.maldura.unipd.it/romanistica/viale/lezione_diatopia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Try as I might, I can't come up with any reason why Tuscan truncated infinitives (e.g. finì, pèrde) would be expected to undergo stress shift as a result of truncation. Would whoever suggested that the lack of stress shift needs explanation please elaborate?96.42.57.164 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I've cleaned it up.96.42.57.164 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress position of truncated infinitive 

message: I hope this article can in the future tell more about how Tuscan became modern Italian. WikiParker (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Two observations with regard to that, though. 1) At no time is what is now and previously labeled Italian actually equivalent to Tuscan. Italian is definitely and rather obviously formed from Tuscan, but even Dante says outright that there are Tuscan features that he does not approve of. (The long Italian / Tuscan battle is what's known in Italian as the questione della lingua). 2) Thus Tuscan can't really be said to have become modern Italian, and both origins and development of Italian are better treated under history of Italian. 68.98.110.11 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Becoming modern Italian 

message: This is pretty much meaningless in English: Some scholar individuate the subdivision in etruscan age. Does anyone know what is intended? And what the appropriate reference(s) might be? (A list of names is not a reference.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some scholar individuate the subdivision in etruscan age. 

message: Is there some reason relevant to Tuscan for this text?
:::A similar process is found in Catalan and its dialects. Final infinitive -r is not pronounced, so anar is realised as /ə'na/, as well as in Campidanese Sardinian.
If so, why mention just Catalan and Campidanese? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random mention of other Romance varieties re infinitival -r-? 

message: What seems to have taken place is a realignment of the paradigm in accordance with the statistically minor but highly frequent paradigms of dare (give) and stare (be, stay). Thus so, sai, sa, sanno (all singulars and 3rd personal plural of 'know') come to fit the template of do, dai, dà, danno ('give'), sto, stai, sta, stanno ('be, stay'), and fo, fai, fa, fanno ('make, do') follows the same pattern.
All five 1st p sg forms (do, fo, so, sto, vo) are pronounced with ò, not ó, pointing to earlier *dao, *fao, *sao, *stao, *vao. So there was much more analogical development and much fewer inherited forms. 195.187.108.130 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fo & vo section