Talk:Gallo-Italic languages

message: gallo-siculo or siculo-gallic?
--Jorgengb 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have often wondered myself.  I note that the Italian article uses "gallo-siculo".  Prof.  Hull in Polyglot Italy, talks of Gallo-Romance elements in the koine, but then says:  Siculo-Padanian had died out or been sicilianized beyond recognition by the twelfth century everywhere except in the towns of Novara, San Fratello, Nicosia, Sperlinga, Aidone and Piazza Armerina.  Might be worthwhile asking the same question in the Italian article.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Hi all,
after completing a bit this page, we could envisage to move it into
Cisalpine language/Cisalpine languages. What about that? Bests regards,
--10caart 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cisalpine" is a quite confusing name, see Cisalpine (disambiguation). Best regards.--Aubadaurada 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to revert the last modifications (and the last renaming) made by 10caart, which are misleading and undocumented; Hull calls the language 'Padanian', only Pellegrini calls it 'Cisalpine'.--Aubadaurada 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Which Wikipedia:reliable sources do we have actually supporting the idea that "Northern Italian" is a single language, as opposed to a language family (which is consistent with Ethnologue and ISO codes)? I think the name of this article really should be made plural myself. LjL (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this page? 

message: I don't mean to start this whole language/ dialect debate, but shouldn't this article be "Northern Italian languages" (plural) since Piedmontese, Venetian, Lombard and maybe others are seen by some scholars as languages in their own right? Dionix (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the view of mainstream Romance linguistics.--Nil Blau (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of such a language before.  This article should be changed to "Northern Italian languages" (as someone already mentioned) or "Gallo-Italic languages."  There is no sole Northern Italian Language.  There are many languages, and many of them are mutually unintelligible, i.e., Venetian and Piemontese!  These languages comprise the Gallo-Italic language group.  The view of mainstream Romance linguistics?  Where are your references?  I've never heard such a thing in English or Italian!  Scherziamo!? --Nocontinental (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My references are given at the beginning of the article: Pellegrini 1975 and Rohlfs 1975 (for a group within Italian) or Hull 1982 (for an autonomous language). And I could add other references. The unity of Northern Italian is a scientific fact. You should read academic publications in Romance linguistics. Anyway, the vision of a group of distinct languages, although it is not supported in linguistics, is also mentioned in the definition; so everyone should be satisfied.--Nil Blau (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to know where you have references of "Northern Italian Language" or in italiano "lingua italiana settentrionale"?  I've never heard either of these titles, in either English or Italian.  I've heard of Gallo-Italic but never N. Italian.  I've heard of gallo-italico but never italiano settentrionale.  That's what I disagree with, the name of this language group. --Nocontinental (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look: Pellegrini (1975) says "italiano settentrionale", Hull (1982) says "Padanian" and sometimes "Northern Italian". I suggest you to read and follow what scholars say. Wikipedia has to inform people about academic publications, not about personal research nor personal claims. The point is not if you "agree" or "disagree" with academic research. — — — Something else: "Gallo-Italic" is a part of "Northern Italian", both terms are not synonyms.--Nil Blau (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The decision to name the article "Northern Italian language" is on the premise that just two publications use this terminology.  On the other hand, I could probably list hundreds of sources that refer to this, more appropriately said language group, as Gallo-Italic (Gallo-Italian), with some designating this group as Cisalpine (ancient use) or Padanian (modern/political use).  The term Northern Italian (italiano settentrionale) is the most rarely used term I've ever heard - in English and Italian!  Please, tell me where you're from.  I respect your point of view, and the point of view of the general linguistic community.  But: 1. You're either NOT Italian.  Or 2.  You may be Italian, but I have a feeling that you're trying to further some political agenda.  Northern Italian, in theory, may lead many to believe this is some variation of Italian in Northern Italy.  Most of us know this to be anything but the truth, that Gallo-Italic is independent of Italian and any variation of Italian, however, this title will confuse readers unfamiliar with the historical and linguistic attributes of the area.  Further, one only needs to look at the Italian, French, Occitan, Dutch, Polish Wikipedia versions of this article - they all use Gallo-Italian.  This also demonstrates which name is most commonly used by and most familiar to the general European community.  --Nocontinental (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confident that Dr Hull's work is not politically inspired (I'm reasonably familiar with it), but unfortunately there are many others who definitely come to this debate carrying a bit of policitical baggage.  Wikipedia consistently falls back on Ethnologue to resolve virtually all of its linguistic disputes.  It's on the strength of Ethnologue that we have Piedmontese, Lombard and Venetian wikipedias at all.  If Ethnologue refers to these these belonging to a particular linguistic group, let's run with it - to do anything else is to tend towards personal views and original research.  πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 09:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: However, there is an inherent inconsistency in both the article and your argument, and that is:  the article is entitled "Northern Italian language", but the article itself goes on to talk about two separate language groups, in which case, surely we are talking about a Northern Italian lanaguage group, rather than a Northern Italian language?  πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no inconsistency. I suggest you to read carefully my last edits and the scientific references I gave: nobody says that Gallo-Italic and Venetian are two separate languages, I say (with Pelligrini, Hull and other romanists) that they are two dialectal groups of the same Padanian/Cisalpine/Northern Italian linguistic set.--Nil Blau (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I think that there is a bit confusion (maybe also among authors). Enok states: In fact, the only similar are Lombard, Piemontese, Venetian, Emiliano-Romagnolo and Ligurian; commonly known as Gallo-Italian. while Nocontinental states: There are many languages, and many of them are mutually unintelligible, i.e., Venetian and Piemontese! This is a common but not true point of view: above all, Venetian is markly different from the other Gallo-Italian family languages; which are, as Enok states, "similar" among them; but Nocontinental statement is really absurd, he should have never listened to both a Piedmontese and a Venetian speaker, or at least coming from a completely different enviroment and knowing nothing about them. Venetian is different in both grammar and phonetics, and it cannot be considered a Gallo-Italian language; nor some similar word (e.g. Venetian carega and Lombard cadrega for chair) can be used to state it. Actually the Italian Wikipedia page about Gallo-Italic does not include Veneto; another example of this different classification can be found inside this page. A famous author to refer to can be Ascoli. There is also an historical problem, because Gallo means Gaul, and by no way Veneto was ever inhabited by Gauls as were North-West Italy and Emilia-Romagna.
Thus, in my opinion, the correct classification of Northern Italian languages (dialects) is:
*Gallo-Italian:
:*Lombard
:*Emilian-Romagnolo
:*Piedmontese
:*Ligurian
:*etc.
*Venetian:
:*Lagoon (Sea) Venetian
:*Central Venetian
:*etc. (from Verona and Trento to Trieste and Istria)
*Rhaeto-Romance:
:*Friulan
:*Ladin
*Istriot
Take note that the difference between Venetian and Ladin dialects can be very thin: Ladin dialects of the Dolomites can be intelligible to a Venetian speaker, and viceversa (while a Venetian speaker would hardly understand many Gallo-Italian dialects), and there is even a Ladin-Venetian variety. Istriot is not to be confused with the Venetian-Istrian dialect, which is part of Venetian language, even if Istriot is strongly influenced by Venetian.
Filippo83 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we like to put Gallo-Italian and Venetian dialects together, we should then create a page for Northern Italian or High Italian (cfr. Marcato) or Galloromance dialects. Filippo83 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I do not think, in my opinion, that Ethnologue should be considered a primary source for our classifications; specialised authors (like Ascoli, Pellegrini, Marcato et al.) must instead be considered before. Filippo83 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pellegrini's Map of Italian Dialects for another example. Filippo83 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I have seen just now that the map included in the page considers itself Venetian language as distinct from Gallo-Italian ones: so I think that my modify is even more justified. Filippo83 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Venetian language is not a Gallo-Italian language

message: This article is very poor. It should be deleted and seriously rewritten. --79.25.24.72 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor, or simply not biased the way you want it to be? Benwing (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: More ancient versions were quite more wikipedia-suitable, i.e. neutral and encycopedic.
The present version is politically biased and representative of a (technically speaking) fascist pov, biased to diminish a specific cultural area.
The title itself is not neutral, inasmuch as this language (or these languages) are not Italian, according to the available scientific sources. 
Even the "Italianist" name this/these language(s) as "Italian" inasmuch as they are spoken within the Italian state, not for an affiliation to the Italian language.
It can be instructive too read Haiman-Benincà: The Rhaeto-Romance languages, introduction:
"Confusion arises by referring to [the Cisalpine] dialects as ‘Italian dialects’ or even ‘dialects of Italian’, which is absurd"
I suggest a google search for "padanian language" or "Rhaeto-Cisalpine":
* Google for "Padanian language"
* Google for "Rhaeto-Cisalpine"
to get a whole bunch of reliable scientific sources.
This article should not express a particular point of view or give a stage to some protagonist, but simply tell about what has been published (books or peer reviewd journals) on the subject. Best regards --79.21.158.4 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith.  Don't call the existing authors fascists ("technical" or not); that's not going to get you anywhere, and will alienate a lot of people.  Also, until you can separate out your evident pro-Padanian political and linguistic bent from your discussion of the overall quality of this page, I'm afraid this discussion won't go anywhere.  Benwing (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More ancient versions; new reliable scientific sources 

message: I've removed all of the excessive inline tags.  The tags looked highly politically motivated.  It would be better for the author(s) in question who have these issues to discuss them here in the talk page, because the issue is obviously not the various little nitpicky things that got inline tags added to them, but something much more general.
So please tell me:
1. What do you think is original research, and why?  What do you think is the true scholarly consensus?
2. What do you think is biased, and why?  How do you think it should be phrased so that it's unbiased?
Be concise, to the point, and most importantly: Be sure to separate out your political views from your views about this page as an encyclopedic work.  If you're not capable of doing that, then you probably shouldn't be editing anything that touches on your political views.
Specific citations for particular facts aren't necessary now.  We can add those later once we've worked out what actually goes in.  Enough is simply a citation down below to a whole work.
I really don't think this ought to be so controversial.  We are basically just reviewing the secondary sources and to some extent the primary sources, and summarizing them. Benwing (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  drive-by tagging 

message: I am reverting edits by User:DissidentAggressor. He is claiming WP:OR when there is in fact a huge number of sources for the sections he has deleted. I shall list them here:
* Bernard Comrie, Stephen Matthews, Maria Polinsky (eds.), The Atlas of languages : the origin and development of languages throughout the world. New York 2003, Facts On File. p. 40.
* Stephen A. Wurm, Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris 2001, UNESCO Publishing, p. 29.
* Glauco Sanga: La lingua Lombarda, in Koiné in Italia, dalle origini al 500 (Koinés in Italy, from the origin to 1500), Lubrina publisher, Bèrghem
* Studi di lingua e letteratura lombarda offerti a Maurizio Vitale, (Studies in Lombard language and literature) Pisa : Giardini, 1983
* Brevini, Franco – Lo stile lombardo : la tradizione letteraria da Bonvesin da la Riva a Franco Loi / Franco Brevini – Pantarei, Lugan – 1984 (Lombard style: literary tradition from Bonvesin da la Riva to Franco Loi )
* Mussafia Adolfo, Beitrag zur kunde der Norditalienischen Mundarten im XV. Jahrhunderte (Wien, 1873)
* Pellegrini, G.B. "I cinque sistemi dell'italoromanzo", in Saggi di linguistica italiana (Turin: Boringhieri, 1975), pp. 55–87.
* Rohlfs, Gerhard, Rätoromanisch. Die Sonderstellung des Rätoromanischen zwischen Italienisch und Französisch. Eine kulturgeschichtliche und linguistische Einführung (Munich: C.H. Beek'sche, 1975), pp. 1–20.
* Canzoniere Lombardo – by Pierluigi Beltrami, Bruno Ferrari, Luciano Tibiletti, Giorgio D'Ilario – Varesina Grafica Editrice, 1970.
--Mrjulesd (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting DissidentAggressor Edits

message: I have modified the section by putting in comment brackets all the examples that pertain to languages which are not within the Gallo-Italic family. I think it is a good idea to compare languages but there were far too many examples which were not related. I have therefore changed the name of the section as well. Regards!
Suturn (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons section 

message: Is this meant to say what it says, i.e. that Italian (/kl/ >) /kj/ > /tʃ/? If so, does that mean it's referring to borrowings from Italian rather than indigenous developments? And if that's the case, what happens natively to pre-Romance /kl/, i.e. without the interference of Italian? 47.32.20.133 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian /kj/ from Latin /kl/ is further palatalized to /tʃ/... 

message: I'd like to point out the following, in :
:"Evidence of this comes from Rhaeto-Romance, in particular Sursilvan, which preserves reflexes of both final -us and -um, and where the latter, but not the former, triggers metaphony. This suggests the development -us > /ʊs/ > /os/, but -um > /ũː/ > /u/."
In :
:"Metaphony in the northern Italian languages (those to the north of Tuscany) is triggered only by final /i/. In these languages, as in Tuscan, final /u/ was lowered to /o/; it evidently happened prior to the action of metaphony."
Moreover,  strongly suggests that final /s/ was not preserved in Gallo-Italic, unlike in Western Romance, but instead became /j/ early, just like in Italo-Romance.
All of this implies that Gallo-Italic is most likely Italo-Romance in origin, and most closely related to Tuscan, but was later areally influenced by Western Romance (Rhaeto-Romance (cf. ), Northern Gallo-Romance (cf. Valdôtain), Occitano-Romance) – specifically, by a Western Romance (especially Rhaeto-Romance-like) substratum. (As an aside, for a Western Romance substratum much farther east affecting Slavic dialects, see here. This could have been "Carantano-Romance", an early form of Rhaeto-Romance of which Friulian might be a remainder.) Note my discussion with Benwing on this matter here. See also  on this same talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Gallo-Italic within Romance