Talk:Lombard language

message: It really is a shame that smaller Switzerland recognizes Lombard, yet Italy, where it came from, doesn't, or perhaps doesn't want, to recognize Lombard. I should suggest to all Lombard speakers in Italy should try to use only Lombard. Besides, I thought that the north of Italy was supposed to be the wealthier part, so that would mean that whatever would be spoke, that it would be no problem and that it would not discriminate whoever speaks whatever? I believe that the region of Lombardy should become a part of Switzerland if this commences! IlStudioso 06:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why doesn't Italy recognize Lombard?

message: I thought this was a no-brainer, but it seems some people have strange ideas around here... The "lombard language" does not exist. You can talk about a "Lombard family" of dialects (or languages if you prefer, this is not the issue). The "lombard language" is just as absurd as "the romance language", "the scandinavian language", "the iberian language", "the slavic language". It's a plain nonsense, and the article has a very misleading title. If some "modern linguists" came up with some weird definitions of language where a language may not even be mutually intelligible with itself, kudos, but readers expect an explicative title.
I mean, the article itself states that it is "a group of related dialects" and even that "Sometimes the word "Lombard" is used referring to an actually not yet existent common language." (yet??)
I also noticed that some of the notes I put about the historical reasons of the reduced use of dialects has been cut out. Will see what can be recovered. Anyway, my point is the absurdity of the singular number. --Orzetto 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such thing as "Lombard language" 

message: Hi, I changed quite a few things. Please keep comments in their subsections and sign each one, so it is easier to keep track. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very well agree with you. It's like saying everybody in the United States speaks English, which, actually, a nice plump percentage come here not even knowing what English is, especially those who come from nations that don't border the US. Giacomo DiBenedetto (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization/rewrite of January 9, 2005 

message: 9,133,855 is outrageously off the mark. It is more than the population of Lombardy. Since most people under 40 do not speak dialect at all because they grew up with Italian, since there are consistent numbers of both extra-european and southern-Italian immigrants (Milan is Italy's third Apulian city after Bari and Brindisi, to give an idea—then we have to count Sicilians, Campanians, and all the mixed marriages where dialect cannot be used for intercommunication... you get the picture). I put N/A until a more reasonable estimate can be found. Please notice we are talking about speakers, not people who  merely understand it, or know just one sentence or two. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very well agree with you. It's like saying everybody in the United States speaks English, which, actually, a nice plump percentage come here not even knowing what English is, especially those who come from nations that don't border the US. Giacomo DiBenedetto (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of speakers 

message: I removed it since there is a disambiguation link pointing to Lombardic language (which is not related). --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lombardic" 

message: I tried to avoid using "language" or "dialect" altogether, so we avoid at least this one controversy. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language vs. Dialect vs. ... 

message: Now the arguments are presented as Introduction-Features-Varieties-Usage-Links. I added something on the historical-political reasons of usage in Italy, which I feel must be explained. --Orzetto 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement and sectioning 

message: Lombard language v Lombard dialects page move request (WP:RM#9_January_2006) - if the issue isn't settled, can people vote here please? Rd232 talk 13:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: Could someone start wikipedia in Lombard?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk):-)
: Check  (note: LMO and not LOM). Cate 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://lom.wikipedia.org Lombard wikipedia] 

message: I find it extraordinary that some authors have been so dismissive of the siculo-gallic dialects that have as their origin the large scale immigration of mostly Lombards to Sicily between 1090 and 1120 after the Norman conquest of Sicily.  These dialects are spoken to this day in Piazza Armerina, Sperlinga and Aidone amongst others (but in ever decreasing numbers).  After 900 years they are more a mixture of Sicilian and Lombard dialects.  I would have thought that they at least rate a mention in this article (but definitely deserve a serious article of their own).  This is a quote from the article on Sicily:  "There are also several areas where dialects of the Lombard language of the Gallo-Italic family are spoken. Much of this population is also tri-lingual, being able to also speak one of the Sicilian dialects as well."   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recommend the following excellent text which provides a detailed linguistic history on the subject:  * Hull, Dr Geoffrey (1989) Polyglot Italy:Languages, Dialects, Peoples, CIS Educational, Melbourne.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact is that Siculo-Gallic does not necessarily imply Siculo-Lombard. In any case, texts in those varieties are unintelligible to a Lombard speaker.--80.202.30.190 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very interesting issue, and I think the Siculo-Gallic (or Gallo-Sicilian ?) varieties deserve a wiki of their own. Could ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑, who seems to be the most qualified expert about those varieties, start a Siculo-Gallic or Gallo-Sicilian Wiki?--Jorgengb 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siculo-gallic dialects 

message: I see some political sentiments creeping into this article which, if not POV, represent either OR or something certainly difficult to verify (I refer to the last few edits).  I have already given my thoughts on this article above, and do not wish to get involved.  I will say this though, apart from the political undercurrents of this article, the following are fictitious words:  "distantiate" and "fictive".  Find some real words, or better still, rewrite the whole thing to make it an article actually broaching linguistic themes.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of article deteriorating

message: Which country should be mentioned first, Switzerland or Italy? 
* Lombard is far better preserved in Switzerland;
* Lombard is more socially accepted in Switzerland;
* More money is invested in research about Lombard varieties in Switzerland than in Italy;
* In present-day Switzerland there is no political will to eradicate Lombard;
* The largest research institutions working on lombard and Lombard culture are in Switzerland;
* The largest publications about Lombard come from Switzerland;
* The chances for Lombard to survive are much better in Switzerland than in Italy;
Therefore I think Switzerland should be mentioned first.
--80.202.30.190 18:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree, but the point is that this is an encyclopedia so you must provide facts to your statements, otherwise defining in which country is better preserved becomes a totally subjective matter. Unless you provide facts, Lombardy (which has itself more inhabitants than the whole Switzerland) should be mentioned first. --Fertuno 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmh, well that's not so obvius, but I am afraid I agree (especially about last point: I mean this by saying 'I am afraid') Bests--213.140.11.135 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh là là, merci! Well... I agree.--Belinzona 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. --Clamengh 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CH or IT

message: Once it has been made clear at the beginning that "The term Lombard refers to a group of related varieties" and not to a single, standardised variety, there is no need to repeat "Lombard varieties" or "dialects" or "idioms" every time throughout the whole article. "Lombard" is just a shorthand form for "Lombard varieties".--80.202.30.190 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lombard varieties, Lombard dialects, Lombard idioms, etc.

message: It seems to me that many of the users who have debated the "language issue" in this discussion page are not very up-to-date when it comes to modern linguistic thory and to the meaning of the word 'language'. Cfr.
Ausbausprache, etc.. 
There is no doubt that Italian and French are Ausbau languages. Lombard as per today is not an Ausbau language, but nevertheless it is an Abstand language on the ground of its structural distance (in German: Abstand) from, say, Italian and French: 
"A language may be an abstand language without being an ausbau language. This is often the case with minority languages used within a larger nation state, where the minority language is used only in private and all official functions are performed in the majority language."
(Ausbausprache, etc.).
We can therefore say that Lombard as per today is not an Ausbau language; that Lombard is an Abstand language; that Lombard as per today has no own Dachsprache or 'umbrella language' (the so-called 'koiné ticinese' might actually be a good candidate for Swiss Lombard varieties or even for all Western Lombard varieties).
Finally:
Kloss has also used the term pseudo-dialectized abstand language for cases where a variety is so different from its Dachsprache that it ought to be regarded as a separate language on abstand grounds, but is nevertheless treated more like a dialect in social practice. Examples include Sardinian vis-a-vis Italian, or Occitan vis-a-vis French.
(Ausbausprache, etc.).
This is also the case of Lombard vis-a-vis Italian as a Dachsprache.
Please notice that in the Wiki about Ausbausprache, etc. the term 'language' is used in all cases, making no assumption as to whether there is a codified standard or not.
If an authoritative linguist like Kloss, together with many others, uses the word 'Sprache'/'language' without implying standardisation, I can't see any reason (other than Italian cultural imperialism...) why we shouldn't safely switch the "Lombard (linguistics)" wiki back to "Lombard language". 
--Jorgengb 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I report below the three oppositions (including mine) to the original move as supports for going back to the original title--10caart 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Motivation: in fact a new vote.--10caart 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To OlBergomi: Would you mind pasting here (some of) the text from Italia settentrionale, crocevia di idiomi romanzi, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1995, pag.83 ?  Thanks ! - --Jorgengb 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: PS I have the same problems as OlBergomi, I am new here (I didn't understand exactly what AjaxSmack means)--Belinzona 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move.--Flavi 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the language issue

message: :Add any additional comments:
And now it looks like User:Clamengh has gone ahead and moved it before the consensus is in. The box says "after a few days", not "after a few hours". --Ptcamn 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Sirs, many thanks to everybody for taking part in this passionating discussion.
As a matter of fact, 'Lombard language' (or tongue) is the standard term used by scholars to designate this language. So this is the right place for this article, as Bkonrad correctly poointed out.
As someone else noted, a Google search for 'Lombard language' returns more than 1.000.000 results: I think this settles the question. I think that politicised views should be left far from this encyclopedia, as WP:NOT requires. Reality is simple: no doubt that Lombard is a dying language, so everyone is kindly asked not to shot at the red cross. Thank you.
Here are some references:
*Glauco Sanga: La lingua Lombarda, in Koiné in Italia, dalle origini al 500 (Koinés in Italy, from the origin to 1500), Lubrina publisher, Bèrghem 
*Orbis Latinus
*dict.cc, Deutsch-English Übersetzaung
*Logos dictionary for Mantuan and Bressan
*the linguist list
*tourist information
*Studi di lingua e letteratura lombarda offerti a Maurizio Vitale, (Studies in Lombard language and literature) Pisa : Giardini, 1983 
* Fasolo, Giovanni Battista<ca. 1600-ca. 1664> - Il Carro di Madama Lucia , et una Serenata in lingua lombarda (Lombard language), che fa la gola, a carnevale; dopo un Ballo di tre Zoppi; con una Sguazzata di colasone. Una moresca... - Roma: Robletti, Giovanni Battista, 1628
* 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 )
* G.Hull: the linguistic unity of northern Italy and Rhaetia, PhD thesis, University of Sidney West, 1982
* romaniaminor, a map of Romance languages, including lombard language It needs Flash.
*A paper by the Catalan linguist Santi Arbós, see contents at p.2
* La llengua llombarda - Article by Andrea de Vecchi (Catalan)
* Italia Settentrionale crovevia di idiomi romanzi, atti del convergno internazionale Trento 1993 (Northern Italy carrefour of Romance idioms, proceedings of international congress, Trent 1993), Niemeyer, Tübingen 1995
*Unesco red book of endangered languages
*[www.iso.ch ISO international standards]
Many other ones available upon request. All in all, please, be so kind to get yourselves documented upon verifiable sources. 
From now on I will be speaking as a spokesman of Lombard community: we are firm in defending our language, and this place for this article. Thank you. --Clamengh 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I removed the following statement.
No Lombard variety is mutually intelligible with Italian. The Lombard speaking population of Switzerland have long been indentifying as the "Italian speaking community", which stands in stark contrast with the closely related Romansh language, which is never thought of as an Italian dialect.
In my opinion the comparison does not stand: Romansh was never considered an Italian dialect because it isn't one. In the Italian speaking part of Switzerland (as in Italy) the spoken language is Italian (and in addition Lombard). In the Romansh speaking regions Italian is not spoken. Romansh is the sole language.Matteo 14:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialect and Romansh 

message: It's up to en.wiki to decide what the community pleases on this issue. Anyway, I wish you all to note that the WMF at large uses ISO 639-3 as a source for language denomination, and not anything else. No matter what happens here NO request based on codes external to ISO 639-3 will be accepted, according to the current policy. We are no Language Darwin, we don't create names, and much of what is happening here is largely in the bounds of Original Research. Everyone is welcome to document local academic positions that step out of mainstream international classification, but acting as a source at personal level is off limits. I feel this much is due. --Bèrto 'd Sèra 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMF policy on languages 

message: FYI, please see:
*:meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lombard Wikipedia
--A. B. (talk)  15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lombard Wikipedia

message: The statement "The term Lombard refers to a group of related varieties" is confusing, as it implies that "being made up of related varieties" is a peculiar carachteristic of Lombard, whilst it is true of any known human language (though it's true of some artificial languages too, eg LISP). I've now edited this, hoping that we can discuss the varieties in the "varieties" section, as is done for other languages. Also, the statement that "The union of Western Lombard or Insubric, Eastern Lombard and intermediate varieties under the denomination of "Lombard" is simply conventional and not based on linguistic analysis" is utterly wrong, as the two differ mostly in their word-level phonology (Easter Lombard shows s- spirantisation and fricative elision in context where western Lombard doesn't) but they are clearly to be brought together when it comes to their syntactic structure, as well as their wider-level phonology (as discussed by, for example, Biondelli []). --Dakrismeno (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stress the point: there is nothing called "Lombard Language", there are a bunch of similar, sometimes not so similar, languages that are spoken in Lombardy and south switzerland.  Lombardy languages are more different each other than, for instance, America-English and British-English or Swiss-Italian ad Italy-Italian. I hope that lombardy-as-a-nation POV do not trash also this article. --DracoRoboter (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ethnologue, ISO, and a series of linguistic studies (Bertoni 1916, Pelegrini 1977, Rohlfs 1967, inter alia) have argued for Lombard as a genuine linguistic entity. What scientific support is there for the statements you've made?? --Dakrismeno (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'varieties' issue

message: The site www.alperiodic.net links to an online periodical in Lombard, for those who wish to see what the language looks and sounds like. Why was it deleted?? --Dakrismeno (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being spammed across many wikis.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That website is one of the very few resources where people can go to see what Lombard looks and sounds like. That seems to be a good reason for adding it to wikis that report information about the Lombard language. What happened to assuming good faith? --Dakrismeno (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To this day, the page still does not have a link to a website/resource where people can go to if they wish to see what Lombard looks and sounds like. If there are no objections, I would like to add such link. As there are very few resources in written lombard, we might even add all of them (about 3). --Dakrismeno (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As to today 3rd of February, noone has opposed my suggestion. I proceed to add teh link, hopefully it won't be immediately deleted this time. --Dakrismeno (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: A "Familiy Language" title has been added to the introductory section in the last edit.
1) I have no idea what that term would mean
2) I thought it was customary to have untitled introductory sections to the topic
I didn't want to just revert it without saying anything, but I'll revert it shortly.
LjL (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Family language"? 

message: In the Language infobox, the subdivision Gallo-Italian appears where other languages have Gallo-Iberian (between Western and Gallo-Romance). I don't know if this is a mistake or a reflection of some taxonomy war, but it's certainly confusing. Gallo-Italian redirects to Northern Italian languages, where the infobox says they are a subdivision of Gallo-Romance.--87.162.47.230 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: I don't think this statement was POV. As also reported in the info-box, the gallo-italic language(s) belong to a separate Romance subfamily compared to Italian, and therefore are by definition separate from Italian (though disputable whether they form one or several separate languages, but this is a separate issue). As it is logically impossible for two given languages to (1) belong to a separate subfamily AND (2) be dialects of each other, the statement was entirely coherent with Romance categorization, and thus not POV. I thus proceed to change it back. --Dakrismeno (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nasty habit" of wikipedia 

message: As also reported in the info-box, the gallo-italic language(s) belong to a separate Romance subfamily compared to Italian, and therefore are by definition separate from Italian (though disputable whether they form one or several separate languages, but this is a separate issue). As it is logically impossible for two given languages to (1) belong to a separate subfamily AND (2) be dialects of each other, the statement was entirely coherent with Romance categorization, and thus not "dubious". I thus proceed to change it back. --Dakrismeno (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lombard as not a derivative of Italian

message: Hello All,
I've used wikipedia for some time, like most college students, but am rather new to the whole writing side. Naytheless, I have something I'd like to ask that applies to a few articles I've read. If this has already been addressed, forgive me, but I must question the need to give a citation for a line akin to "though a very small minority may be uncomfortable speaking it". If someone points out a maybe rather than saying "a small minority is uncomfortable speaking Lombard", I see no need for a quote. The sentence might be in need of better wording, but a pointing out a maybe is just that, and demanding a citation of such lines seems nitpicky, and a want of a citation wouldn't take any weight from the passage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakrar16 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is common practice in Wikipedia, you need to cite sources for every statement and especially for the ones that have been challenged. See Wikipedia:REF --SynConlanger (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation Needed" Happiness 

message: In the specialised literature I could not find one reference using overtly the label "Lombard language" (apart from it being or not a language, who cares). Its use here is clearly NNPOV. Check 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.
* Harris, M., & Vincent, N. (Eds.). (2003). The romance languages. Routledge.
* Marcato, C. (2002). Dialetto, dialetti e italiano. Il mulino.
* Loporcaro, M. (2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani (Vol. 275). Laterza.
In Italian, the term "language" (again, without considering the nature of the object in question, just the label) is usually used in administrative orders but there is no source stating that that is the most common usage (see also WP:RELY). It is used in other sources, generally of non-linguistic or non-academic/other nature (see ). Both "lombard dialect" and "lombard language" should appear in the article, as per NPOV. --SynConlanger (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Lombard 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/20051123045803/http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/cde/temi/lessico.asp?menu=11 to http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/cde/temi/lessico.asp?menu=11
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050921094359/http://www.ti.ch/Decs/DC/CDE/ to http://www.ti.ch/DECS/DC/cde/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101003809/http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/cde/temi/documentiorali.asp to http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/CDE/temi/documentiorali.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123045803/http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/cde/temi/lessico.asp?menu=11 to http://www.ti.ch/decs/dc/cde/temi/lessico.asp?menu=11
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305060240/http://www.rtsi.ch/scrittori/ to http://www.rtsi.ch/scrittori/
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) 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! My name is Mary and I am a linguistics student currently taking a phonetics course. We were given an assignment involving inputting the phonological features of a language on a Wikipedia page, where it didn't already exist. As you can see by the new section, I found a published document detailing the different consonants and vowels and I filled out the charts accordingly. I am happy to be able to take part in growing and sharing this wonderful language. Thank you
Marehubbs (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: you must have mistaken general IPA charts intended for several languages for language-specific ones. I can tell, as a native speaker, we do not have all those phonemes. I already edited the vowel section and will proceed for the consonant one too. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did this as a project for my Linguistics class, so I understand that there are mistakes. I do not speak Lombard, only a bit of Italian. Thank you for taking the time to make corrections! Buona giornata!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marehubbs (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I am editing it as those charts are not really for Lombard, but were most likely intended for more languages altogether. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 14:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology section 

message: Hi, I'm Gat lombart, I'm from Lombardy and I'm starting a wiktionary in Lombard language. 
I point out that in the wiktionary there are some appendices that explain Lombard grammar, but just written in Lombard. They are collected in the category :incubator:Category: Wt/lmo/Gramatega_lombarda. The most important one is the one that explains the sentence constructions: incubator:Wt/lmo/Appendix:Costruzzion_de_la_fras_in_lombard. Moreover I point out that a new ortography, the New Lombard Ortography, has been gaining ground for about two years on wiki projects in Lombard. Lombard wiktionary is written by using this ortography. 
As I am already busy with the wiktionary I will not have time to help you directly, in the translation of the pages, but I will be able to help you to translate some word through the wiktionary itself. 
You can ask me for the translation of some  words by writing it on this page. I hope you can help me to build wiktionary too, since the wiktionary needs users to start. It would also be nice if anyone of you were interested in learning the Lombard language. 
If someone wants to add English translations of Lombard words they can do so by writing *ingles: word traslation into english under the model   like in this example: incubator:Wt/lmo/aneda --Gat lombart (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary in Lombard language