Talk:Galician–Portuguese

message: See also Talk:Galician-Portuguese language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It says in the beggining of the text, that Mirandese came from Galician-Portuguese, which is not true, it's an Astur-Leonese. You don't have to look for too long to confirm this.
I'm taking the liberty to correct it.
User:McKagan  —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mirandese is not a Galician-Portuguese language

message: This is a comment on a piece of information recently added to the article:
According to Ethnologue there are 15 000 speakers of Galician in the Portuguese region of Trás-os-Montes; these Portuguese speakers of Galician were not influenced by the Castillian language, they are considered in Portugal as speakers of Portuguese.
I have never heard of such a thing, although it's true that Ethnologue claims it.
I think they've let the peculiar characteristics of the Portuguese dialects spoken in northern Portugal confuse them (not surprising, considering they aren't even able to spell Trás-os-Montes properly). In that part of the border, there is a dialect continuum. But I don't think there is any objective criterium by which they could claim some Portuguese are "really" speaking Galician. The opposite could just as easily be argued. FilipeS 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question about the common origin of Galician and Portuguese.  In the 13th century there was no difference, or no differences significant enough to justify any distinction between them, even as dialects of the same language.  What we have today are two languages that are closely related, and whether we call them dialects of the same language depends on our definition of dialect.  I'm afraid it's a question too often treated (above all in Galicia) with political bias or political aims. RC  ((Not being Portuguese or Galician, or even European, I can hardly be accused of a nationalistic bias!))
I'm afraid that's an illusion. I've observed again and again that foreigners also have their biases in these issues. Perhaps it's impossible not to have one. Anyway, thanks for the contributions. Regards. FilipeS 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The whole idea of Galician as a separate entity from Portuguese (not only in the sociolinguistic, but also in the historical sense) is only a bizarre idée fixe deriving from nationalism. A Portuguese linguist friend has pointed out that Galician only seems rather distinct because it is usually compared to Standard Portuguese, which is based on the southern dialects. However, the picture completely changes when Galician is compared to the entirety of Portuguese dialects spoken in Portugal. It turns out that Galician is more closely related to the northern dialects than to the southern ones. However, this means that it cannot meaningfully be called a separate language – that is, as long as Northern Portuguese is not considered to be separate either. Anyone trained in historical linguistics will understand this. The primary split in Portuguese is between northern and southern dialects, not between Portuguese dialects of Portugal and Galician. So "Galician-Portuguese" is redundant: as a branch of Western Romance, it should simply be called "Portuguese", and as a medieval language, "Old Portuguese" (with slight internal dialectal variation, maybe; though I can't find any clear evidence that modern dialect features and isoglosses – including those that characterise Galician – were already present in the 13th century). (NB: I think that Old Portuguese – Old Leonese – Old Spanish in the high medieval period is better described as a chain of dialects – whose internal variation is virtually negligible at the time –, in view of their close similarity to each other, and not really as separate dialect clusters yet, let alone languages; internal variation only becomes appreciable after that period, and after the expansion into the south of all these three – at the same time as they become more distinct from each other as well, due to internal changes that give them many of the features now considered typical of them, especially in the case of Spanish.) Galician is essentially, from a purely linguistic (not sociolinguistic) point of view, a northern Portuguese dialect group that has been secondarily influenced by Standard European Spanish. It is most definitely not intermediate between Portuguese and Spanish – not even Astur-Leonese is; Astur-Leonese is closer to Standard Portuguese than to Castilian Spanish, and Galician is even closer than that: it has all the hallmarks of Portuguese (such as the loss of intervocalic /n/ and /l/ and the definite articles o and a, and many others), which is only slightly obscured by the more Spanish-like spelling. Its Portuguese character is extremely obvious from the examples given in Galician language, such as the Lord's Prayer alone. This is basically just another case like Moldavian vs. Romanian. (However, this does not mean that Galician is uninteresting from a linguistic point of view: the fact that it was less influenced by Standard Portuguese than related dialects inside Portugal, such as Trasmontano, makes it interesting to dialectologists and historical linguists, and it is also a case study in language contact between closely related languages, among other things. I'm not implying that Galician is worthless because it is "only" a Portuguese dialect group: it is most definitely deserving of study, and of course of use as a medium of communication.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? Of course Galician and the northern Portuguese dialects are similiar: Galicia and northern Portugal have been the same country for longer than they have been separated. KaIIaikoi (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

text: "Galician-Portuguese" is redundant: as a branch of Western Romance, it should simply be called "Portuguese"" - Massive facepalm, you do realize the former Kingdom of Galicia is the reason Portugal exists to begin with, right? Right??? KaIIaikoi (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Galician-speaking regions in Portugal?

message: : Could we please use CE (Common Era) instead of A.D.?  CE is neutral (i.e. no Christian bias). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.58.204 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Islamic or Chinese would be fine.  But in the West we commonly count from a fictive year O.  137.73.58.204 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A.D. vs. C.E. 

message: Bonjour, messieurs - so, the Old Portuguese/Galician-Portuguese article does mention (without a source) the consonant phonemes used in the medieval forms; however, it would be nice if:
*The vowel phonemes of Old Portuguese were also mentioned (preferably with the same source for the consonant phonemes)
*Some mention should be made of Old Portuguese orthography and how it differs from Modern Portuguese (other than the digraphs <lh> and <nh>) - for example, the hiatuses that were preserved in Old Portuguese which were eliminated in the modern language
*In addition, some mention should be made of Old Portuguese grammar and how it differs from Modern Portuguese
Just some tips.  --Daniel Blanchette 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Old Portuguese orthography/grammar? 

message: Hi. I am not entirely sure what the text below is menat to contribute. Perhaps the writer did not complete it, bringing in some or other language point to the statement.
"Two cities at the time of separation, Braga and Porto, were within the County of Portugal, and have remained within Portugal to this day. Further north, the cities of Lugo, A Coruña and the great mediaeval centre of Santiago de Compostela, remained within Galicia." Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divergence - Significance of quoted text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Galician-Portuguese. 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/20070927041334/http://ling.cornell.edu/people/Weiss/CGL_34_Language_Contact_5.pdf to http://ling.cornell.edu/people/Weiss/CGL_34_Language_Contact_5.pdf
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 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galician-Portuguese. 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/20070922075547/http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/hlp/gramhist/fonetica.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/hlp/gramhist/fonetica.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061217013602/http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/tempolingua/07.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/tempolingua/07.html
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) 08:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified