Talk:Veronese Riddle

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Veronese Riddle. 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/20060507235754/http://www.multimediadidattica.it/dm/origini/origini.htm to http://www.multimediadidattica.it/dm/origini/origini.htm
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 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Veronese Riddle. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070515110454/http://www.cattedralediverona.it:80/Biblioteca%20Capitolare_3.html to http://www.cattedralediverona.it/Biblioteca%20Capitolare_3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Interesting article, but I have some questions about it. At the top it says it dates from the 8th or early 9th century, and later it says the 10th or early 11th century (under the section Origins of the "Indovinello"). And while most of the article describes it as an early Italian or local Vulgar Latin text from around Verona, that paragraph mentions it as a Mozarabic text from Iberia (an oration for the Spanish Christian Church). Which one is it, and how does that part fit into the rest of it? It's not clear from the way it's written, as it says it was later transferred to Verona. But did it not originate there? Word dewd544 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some discrepancies and unclear parts 

message: It's hard to imagine that any respectable philologist or historical linguist or combination thereof would consider the Indovinello to be in any form of Italian, which originates more or less in Florence. The statement it is considered the first document ever written in the Italian language along with the Placiti Cassinesi is untrue for both. Similarly here: the Placito Capuano (960 A.D.) (the first in a series of four documents dating 960-963 A.D. issued by a Capuan court) is considered to be the first document ever written in Italian. There can be no expectation that vernacular written at that time and in those locales would be in any form of what would eventually be known as Italian. Presumably whoever wrote the text here just short-cutted something like "Romance vernacular of Italy", but it really does need to be described accurately. Those who know the linguistic history can self-correct to that, but it misinforms those who are here for information, distorts their notion of what "Italian language" means, and, alas, feeds the ingenuous notion that Italian dialects = dialects of Italian. Somewhat distressingly, further text under Text analysis and comments seems to reveal unfamiliarity with the rather extensive rethinking of Latin > Romance triggered by Roger Wright's 1972 book, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France -- and the consequences of subsequent work by both Wright and a large number of specialists with regard to the supposed "early" stages of any variety of Romance, work that continues today. Even when a good point is made (e.g. versorio isn't Italian but Veronese), things go awry: by definition -- and in terms of linguistic features -- Veronese isn't Venetian, but Venetan. In brief, this article needs a lot of reworking for general accuracy and to bring it up to date to present knowledge. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very confused and/or confusing use of the label 'Italian' in this article (for starters) 

message: A rush job of moving category with very little discussion and now we have a ms categorized "Italian-language" which is not written in Italian. Yikes. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one is not written in Italian then? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't get much clearer than this: "The Veronese Riddle (Italian: Indovinello veronese) is a riddle written in late Vulgar Latin, or early Romance". Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself explains that there is some disagreement about calling the language "Vulgar Latin" or very early "Italian". I'll add it to :Category:Latin manuscripts and let readers decide for themselves. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: <<The article itself explains that there is some disagreement about calling the language "Vulgar Latin" or very early "Italian".>> No, it does not. Please read carefully. In the lead it says "written in late Vulgar Latin, or early Romance", then "initially hailed as the earliest document in an Italian vernacular (crucial is "an"; there are still innumerable autochthonous Romance vernaculars spoken in Italy) [...] many scholars from Bruno Migliorini to Cesare Segre and Francesco Bruni, who have placed it at the latest stage of Vulgar Latin, though this very term is far from being clear-cut." Not even an ingenuous beginning grad student would claim that the riddle is "in Italian", much less a knowledgeable scholar. It's actually the distinction Late ("Vulgar") Latin or very Early Romance that's not clear cut, and for good reason: (very) Late Latin = (very) Early Romance. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if you really care about that issue, I suggest you continue making that point at Talk:Veronese Riddle#"Italian-language" category is very misleading. It doesn't invalidate the renaming of this category. Moreover, it was already in :Category:Earliest known manuscripts by language and :Category:Italian language. I didn't put it there, so don't blame me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is legitimate. There are any number of ms that qualify as "Italian-language". One glance at the text and it's obvious that Indovinello veronese is not one of them (equally obviously: regardless of how many times it's mislabeled). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

text: To repeat somewhat, and elaborate just a bit, (very) Late "Vulgar" (popular, colloquial) Latin is (very) Early Romance. Late Latin/Early Romance texts typically contain features suggesting the author's intention ("I'm trying my best to write Latin." vs. "I'm trying to write the way I normally speak."). That clarity is absent in the Indovinello, partly due to the constraints of the riddle format, but there's just enough to suggest that the intention was likely local Romance, i.e. Venetan, or perhaps more precisely, Veronese. In either of those interpretations the language is a vernacular of Italy, one quite distinct from the Florentine that would eventually form the basis of what would come to be known as Italian. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Italian-language" category is very misleading