Talk:Arabic language influence on the Spanish language

message: It's obviously related to the English abysmal and stems from abyss which is of Greek origin. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abysm#English
217.118.93.119 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Abismal

message: This list is an open list, there may be words missing in the letters I have already finished with. There are also many words which are of debated origin and many words with arab etymologies ,which are not mentioned in the RAE. An example of this may be "zorra": Zorra means fox but also prostitute. The "léxico de Julio Casares" of 1966 associates this term to "Surriya" (concubine) in Arabic. A case, of one word with 2 meanings and 2 etymologies: The mammal from Portuguese and the prostitute from Arabic. This seems to be quite common in Spanish.--Guzman ramirez 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think there should be two articles. The Arabic influence on the Spanish language should contain only the histroical background, while List of Spanish words of Arabic origin the actual words. jidan 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or not Merge? 

message: It would save us a lot of time and effort if we do not include a definition for each word. Just the derivation would be good enough. But if it easy to add the definion, then I see no problem, I just think that there is a lot of work to do on this page, so we should focus on the etymology. --Inahet 14:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions are unnecessary 

message: There may be over 2000 words missing in the list...
Please add words of Arabic origin which are not on the article to the list below so that they can be checked.
This list will be added to the main list when they reach a significant number.
#azufre
#baldosa, from my point of view, the same origin as balda. Both are cosidered by Spanish Academy from uncertain origin. First time I realized the origin was that, reading a dictionary of Arabic, I felt excited, thinking that I was the first to discover it, (what here is called Original Research) reading in the DRAE that uncertain origin. I was going to write to the Academy when I saw it in an old ethymological dictionary. So it is known, but the Academy doesn´t accept it, I don´t know why. It is a charming story: The "Vía de la Plata" ("Silver Way") hasn´t nothing to do with silver, but with Blata, or Balta (vowels move frequently in Arabic), that means pavimented. Arabs saw the Roman Road, that conserved its paviment, and as it was almost the only way that was like that, they called it "The Pavimented". From Balta, Blata and Plata. So Balda, that has a relationed meaning comes from Balta, and Baldosa is another form of transformation, that conserved more exactly its original meaning. Does anybody have an opinion about this?
#chuzo
#espinaca
#flamenco (?)
#gaza (?)
#gazpacho (?)
#hala (?)
#jalear
#jaguarzo
#lacre
#latón
#magarza/magarzuela
#mahozmedín
#mamarracho
#márfega
#márraga
#mártaga
#máscara
#matar ???  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=matador&searchmode=none
#mazamorra
#mengano
#melena
#místico
#mocárabe
#moharracho
#mojama
#monzón
#motacén
#¡Olé!
#tabaco
#taifa
#Usted (???) similar to Ustaaz in Arabic. Usually considered a contraction of Vuestra Merced
#yemení
#zabacequia
#zabatán
#zafío (not zafio)
#zafra (4 meanings with 4 different arabic etymologies)
#zamboa
#zape
#zargatona/zaragatona
#zoquete
#zurrapa
#Zorra (?)
As for 'azufre', 'sulfur' or 'sulpur' existed in Latin; on the other hand, the Spanish word's prefix 'a-' does suggest that an Arabic form replaced the native form of Latin origin. Hurmata 13:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Words Missing!!!

message: Why are the Toponyms of Portugal in here? Isn't it about the Spanish Language? Should be only about Spain.
Yeah well there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal during the Al-Andalus period so I thought that toponyms should be those of Iberia generally. Maybe we should change the title to "Toponyms of Iberia"- that way the British colony of Gibraltar could also be included.--Guzman ramirez 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong, Lisboa derived from the name the Suevi or the Wisigoth gave: Ulishbona. The Arabs came much later and arabised the name. Check the wikipedia page http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist%C3%B3ria_de_Lisboa
Ok I will check that and delete Lisbon. Although it seems the name is not of visigothic but of Phoenician origin -Alis Usbo (Safe port).--Guzman ramirez 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The etymology of "Lisboa" is debated, but likely Roman or pre-Roman. FilipeS 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toponyms (place names) in Spain and Portugal of Arabic origin

message: decipher: from sifr "zero."
This looks quite English, not Spanish.--zeno 14:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English verb? 

message: The old title, "Spanish words of Arabic origin" was inaccurate because some Arabic words are themselves loanwords (from Persian, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc.). Recently, the title was changed to "Arabic influence on the Spanish language", which is correct, but a little vague if vocabulary's all that's in question. Now, if we were to eventually expand the article to encompass influence on grammar and/or pronunciation, then the current title would be very fortunate. 
In the meantime, while my suggestion undergoes consideration, I have made corresponding changes in the body of the text. These are not disruptive, unlike renaming a page. I also updated the category labels at the bottom of the article to use the current article title. Finally, I updated the internal link to the English vocabulary page, since I have just totally edited it AND changed its title.
I don't intend to change the title of this article -- I leave that to the people who have built this article, in case they come to agree with me. :)  Hurmata 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joan Coromines gives Arabic origin for both. --Jotamar (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿ "Arabic loanwords in Spanish" ? 

message: I just removed baño. A few others are doubtful: droga, dado, to judge by the etymologies in some leading English language dictionaries at dictionary.reference.com. Beware of overenthusiasm. But by the same dictionaries, the claims for droga and dado are plausible. Could it be that the English language dictionaries need to consult etymological scholarship from Spain more than they have? Hurmata 07:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check bagnio as in los baños de Argel. --84.20.17.84 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Make sure the word is indeed an Arabic loanword 

message: The list of words is getting too large. I highly recommend a table like the one I just did . In my opinion it eases a lot the navigation. The table has the following format:
Word	Arabic root	Description</tr>	column 1	column 2	column 3</tr>
Code:
 

Word	Arabic root	Description</tr>	column 1	column 2	column 3</tr>

To enter a new entry to the table you have to add this:
|word||arabic root||description</tr> 
Each letter (A,B,C..etc) will have its own table, i.e. not a single big table. So, how about it?
Jidan 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I saw List of Arabic loanwords in English, and I liked the formatting there (its simple). What do yuou think?  Jidan 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a table? 

message: Just an outsider's comment ...
,,,
There is, of course, Wikipedia's general preference against "list pages" but this page seems to be trying to be something more than that with the lists as simply supporting information. IMHO the article should focus more in the direction of an intellectually meaningful discussion of these influences. Specifically
* There needs to be more formal discussion on how the influences occurred. I.e. briefly summarize when the main borrowing happened, discuss Mozarabic as an intermediary for the borrowing, discuss what kinds of borrowings were most common, what were the effects on grammar and phonology apart from vocabulary, etc.
* Any lists should be essentially an "Appendix" at the end of the article.
--Mcorazao 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I myself am especially interested in the chronology. But my preliminary literature search led me to suspect that there has been little published in English about the history of Arabic loanwords in Spanish, OR in English, and also to suspect that the Spanish language literature is held at hardly any university libraries here in the USA. In this article, I have listed several books by Spaniards that are devoted to the topic -- and there's been a lot of new scholarship since 1980. We need some Spaniards to acudir a unas universidades españolas y distill the contents of these books and add the information to the article.
Well I agree with both of you. This article is slowly evolving from an original list and a meaningful discussion on the influences at the beginning of the article would be most welcome.--Guzman ramirez 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: The lead paragraph now say there are a few pronouns and prepositions from Arabic in Spanish. Well, there is hasta as a prep (any others?), but I can't think of any pronouns. Fulano is a placeholder rather than a pronoun. I thought I'd ask before changing it. Drmaik 06:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns? (and preps?) 

message: Not a loan word, but an unusual contraction formed under pressure of the Arabic "ustath" (don't know spelling). If the article is on influence, and not just loan words, that looks like a fairly major omission. Jd2718 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel that it would disrupt the work on the article to do a little of both at once?  Jd2718 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿Usted?/Other influences 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-27 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I have recently edited this article, adding an introduction, new sections and hopefully improving it. Anyone has any comments, suggestions or criticisms?--Guzman ramirez 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: Maybe I'm wrong but the description of "he" seems to be totally off. It is not an adverb at all but a verb, "haber" used in the same place as "have" in the perfect tenses of English. "He" is the 1st person singular present form of this verb. Therefore in the example reworked below, "he" corresponds to "have", "lo" to "it".
Te lo he dicho meaning I have told you it      
Te    lo   he           dicho
you   it   (I) have     told
That's just my 2 cents, I haven't actually edited the article because I am not a native speaker of Spanish- if anyone reading this is please let me know if this correction would be valid or not. Thanks!   Juanitaatinauj 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Fucking Christ, "he" an adverb? OK "Guzman Ramirez", how do you explain "te lo hemos/han/hubiera/etc. dicho"? Are you a native Spanish speaker, or are you an Islamic chauvinist Middle Easterner or something similar, maybe a Spanish convert to Islam? For you, the hundreds of genuine Arab loanwords aren't enough. I'm sick of these acts of (to use an English phrase), gilding the lily. Like claiming "baño" for this list. 
And whoever raised the objection I'm agreeing with: please sign your comments. Hurmata 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of things. Hurmata, please read WP:CIVIL. This is not the way to conduct discussion. I have to say that Guzman Ramirez seems to me to be very balanced, and does not seem motivated by proving or disproving Arabic influence on Spanish, just listing the evidence. But the point here is not an editor's bias, but how to improve wikipedia. On the issue (Te lo he dicho) I think the removal was correct. But there was another usage (with which I am not familiar) 'he aqui', which was also deleted: can someone provide a reference for that. As for 'hasta', it's the first time I've heard of a Latin origin for this, but at least a reference was provided (can't connect to the site right now, though). Drmaik 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  corrected Hurmata's comment on 'hasta', which did not reflect what www.rae.es said. Drmaik 05:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He aquí translates idiomatically as "behold!", "well get a load of this", and such like. For example, see it used several times in a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, http://spanish.about.com/library/weekly/aa041700a.htm. "I have here" is obviously well suited to be a metaphor for "I vehemently call your attention to something that is already PREsent to you or that I am about to preSENT to you". The same Web site has another page where it lists "he aquí" in a list of idioms based on  the verb "haber" (Google "he aqui"). 
The claim I deleted about "te lo he dicho" is such an affront to common sense, and such an affront to the intelligence of anyone who has even a modest proficiency in Romance languages, that it is an act of intellectual vandalism. The only states of mind which could engender it are dementia (especially on the part of a native speaker) or insincerity (hidden agenda). Hurmata 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Intellectual vandalism merits a harsh response. Hurmata 07:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, WP:assume good faith. I can see how the entry at www.rae.es could be misunderstood in the way that was previously recorded. Jumping to conclusions about 'intellectual vandalism' is not what's called for. 'Carelessness', something which most of us are prone to, is also a possible cause. Whatever the cause, such a response was not merited.  Drmaik 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification: I was discussing "te lo he dicho" (which was the antecedent, and therefore the most probable reading), but it would have been better to be clearer. My apologies.  Drmaik 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drmaik's immediately preceding contribution is misleading in a way that is unfair to me. In particular, Drmaik's careless writing makes it seem that my allegation of intellectual vandalism was directed at a different article contribution other than the one it was really directed to. 
How is Drmaik's latest post misleading? Because it is formatted so that it mooshes together comments on two events in such a way that he seems to be talking about one; and because even in his/her preceding posts he does not make clear what he's referring to. Other persons would have to scrutinize keenly the last few hours of posts AND of contributions to the *article* to realize what all is going on. 
Specifically, I edited the entry *in the article* for 'hasta' and cited www.rae.es. Drmaik has now within the last half day written two posts in which he/she argues I misinterpreted what RAE says. But my charge of intellectual vandalism (made within the last half day) WAS NOT directed in particular at any previous version of the entry for 'hasta'! Read the last few posts. Hurmata 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think that the Arabic origin for "he" is plausible. We are not talking about the form of the verb "haber", here, but rather about a peculiar word, difficult to classify, which means something a bit like "voici" or "voilà" in French. I understand that people get confused about Spanish, because there are two words "he" with different meanings, but in Portuguese the difference is clear: the verb is "hei", the adverb is "eis". Although "eis" has a similar meaning to the Latin "ecce" (as in "Ecce homo"), linguists are unsure about its origin. They don't seem to think it's Latin. FilipeS 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "he" 

message: Several hours ago, I edited the entry for this word, citing the entry for this word in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE). Drmaik, as he/she announced within the preceding subheading deleted my edit arguing I had misinterpreted what RAE has to say. Drmaik has just repeated this argument, writing: "I can see how the entry at www.rae.es could be misunderstood in the way that was previously recorded." (By the way, the use of "recorded" is misleading because Drmaik never specified why h/s concluded I had misunderstood, h/s just asserted that I misunderstood.) I reply now that I did not misunderstand RAE. RAE says (in Spanish of course), 
'hasta'. From Hispanic Arabic hatta, [which was] influenced by Latin 'ad ista', [meaning] 'to that'. 
What nuance the RAE is proposing by saying "influenced by" rather than "from", I don't know what that nuance is. Nevertheless, I assert that it is logical to say that the Hispanic Arabic word comes from a Latin phrase, and that therefore it is Drmaik who misunderstands. Drmaik needs to explain to us how it is that he has correctly understood and I have incorrectly misunderstood. Hurmata 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was requested to explain myself, I'll just say that Guzman has already explained it. The form 'hasta' was influenced by Latin. I'd always assumed the s appeared because of the affricate realisation (ts) that t sometimes has in Moroccan Arabic, but that was an assumption, and that might be a recent phenomenon not found in Andalusi, and I don't think any other words have shown a similar influence. So the www.rae.es expalanation for hatta -> hasta seems very reasonable. hatta is  a classical Arabic word, for which no Latin origin is purported. Drmaik 05:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hasta

message: I have noted complaints by Hurmata regarding my insistence on temporarily mantaining the word baño in the list until I could find the source giving support to an Arabic etymology.
I have finally found it and it is my hard back copy of the 21st edition of the RAE Dicionario de la Lengua Española. Under the entry baño it says the following:
Baño: (De or. inc.; cf. árabe bunayya edificio) Especie de corral grande o patio con aposentillos o chozas alrededor, en el cual los moros tenían encerrados a los cautivos.
So it is used in the sense of a prison. The question is whether RAE's proposed definition is correct... I am not so sure of it, since the proposed origin given in wikipedia entry "bagnio" seems equally plausible. Any opinions?
--Guzman ramirez 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baño

message: Whil looking for something else entirely, I came across
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002005.php
which leads to 
http://www.apresmoiledeluge.blogspot.com/2005/07/lingstica-arabismos-del-castellano.html, 
which seems to be a well-sourced list of what's being done here. Drmaik 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: I saw an old post in arabic wikipedia asking for help and i'll help in writeing arabic words... i did a few.. will do some more soon Histolo2 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  backup here 

message: As far as I know, this prefix, meaning similarity or approach, is from Latin ad. FilipeS 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it sounds dubious to me as well... Im taking it out for the moment. It is a sourced statement though.--Guzman ramirez 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Useful article: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/scclng/01350531966682286190680/p0000001.htm  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guzman ramirez (talk • contribs). 
What's useful about it? FilipeS (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prefix "a" 

message: I have come across two more possible arabisms: Papagayo which has a pretty convincing arabic etymology and the expression "guay" which according to one source, comes from "Kwayyis".
I have added only Papagayo for the moment. Neither etymologies are in the RAE.
Any thoughts?
--Guzman ramirez 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought that Guay had never been used before the early 80s, i.e. "guay del paraguay". --Asteriontalk 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your source for stating that papagayo is of Arabic origin? FilipeS (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Etymology of Guay?  --Asteriontalk 20:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Guay" and "papagayo"

message: Couldnt find it on the RAE but definitely exists after google check. Should we scrap it?--Guzman ramirez (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alhadida

message: Wikipedia is not a repository for all information.  It is also not a dictionary or a translation dictionary or a place for long lists (i.e. this should not be a "list of words of Arabic origin").  There are over a thousand dictionary entries on this page.  We need to seriously parse this down.  Nevertheless, if this information isn't already transwikied to Wiktionary, it should be. We should also consider organizing the words we keep here by things which came through Latin, which introduced new concepts, etc. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think that is a good idea. I don't see what use it would be to eliminate entries from this list.  --Guzman ramirez (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think this list should be exhaustive?  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess because all other similar lists on wikipedia are also exhaustive... for reasons of coherency. In any case the list is not quite exhaustive.. see rationale for inclusion at the beginning of the article.--Guzman ramirez (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to them?  I see List of English words of French origin has 1600 but this is hardly exhaustive and can also be addressed.  I also see List of Latin phrases is split into three articles (though this isn't a list of loanwords). The others I've seen aren't nearly as long.  Which ones are you thinking of?  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I mentioned  List of English words of French origin.  Unless one would like to argue for an English-centric bias (which would be POV), it is equally problematic.  What about my proposal of grouping words according to certain classes or types (religious words, plants, etc)? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not true that all dictionaries hold lots of archaisms; you were probably thinking of the Real Academia dictionary. And the implication that you find is just your personal view. Be aware that some words in the list are now obsolete... is quite a neutral observation and in fact an understatement. --Jotamar (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Woah

message: Is there any relationship between the Spanish word "Guiri" and the Moroccan Arabic "Gauri". Gauri means European or christian in Arabic and Guiri in Spanish means foreigner/tourist/American or northern european....
I think the words and meaning are too similar for them not to be connected. I read somewhere that they are both derived from Kafir in classical arabic. However my  Spanish dictionary claims a Basque etymology from the Carlist wars...
--81.38.85.178 (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guiri and Gauri?

message: I came here wondering whether the Spanish article "el" came from the Arabic "al" but I'm none the wiser.  Does anyone know?  I also wonder whether that made its way to Italy in the form of "il".  --Doradus (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the commonly accepted etymology is from Latin 'ille'. --Jotamar (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this: . --Belchman (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "el" came from "al"? 

message: I am removing the list because this is not some sort of cut down dictionary.Provocateur (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What this article should be or should not be, is not your private business. Major changes in an article must be discussed in advance. --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that an extensive list is out of place in WP.  However, a list that is fairly representative and REFERENCED (how do I know any of those words without one is actually Arabic in origin?) is more than appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline seems to be consistently misunderstood by most editors. It's about not creating a new page for each possible word, because an encyclopaedia is about subjects, not about words. There is nothing in that guideline against word lists inside particular pages, as long as the subject justifies them. Of course there are alternatives, such as a new annex, that I'm ready to discuss collaboratively. --Jotamar (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The list would be significantly pared, and not require a new page, simply by enforcing the reliable source policy for inclusion.MartinezMD (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the point in trimming the list. What's so wrong about it? --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I already mentioned, it's not referenced.  Anyone could put a word in there and say it's Arabic-based when it is not.  Also, if 8% of Spanish words are Arabic-based, you'd need 10 pages to list all of them. MartinezMD (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 95% of Wikipedia is not referenced. And yes, anyone could put a fake word in there and that's why I have this page in my watchlist and I check changes in the list. I cannot guarantee that there aren't a couple of bad entries, but most of them look correct. For example, I remember I got suspicious about the entry atacar, only to find out that there are 2 different atacar verbs in Spanish, one of them, less common, with an Arabic etymology. About listing all possible words, I've never favoured that, but I also see no reason to destroy the work already done. --Jotamar (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I have less of a philosophical argument about the list as I do about the simple veracity.  I can't count on you to be there to correct the list, and many of the words listed simply to do not say what the original Arabic word was.  The list needs to be correct, verifiably, and then we can debate the merits of length. MartinezMD (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary

message: Only artificial languages like Esperanto have an "inception" or are "born" at or around a certain point in time. Castilian did not suddenly appear in the eighth century or the seventh century or the sixth century or the ninth century or the tenth, - these were just stages in a very long evolution of a Latin dialect that had become isolated from the common (vulgar) Latin after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. Good historians understand that - only popular and bad historians don't - they're always looking for nice and neat starting or cut off dates or periods for everything, but living languages don't work like that.  Just because the oldest surviving written fragments or hints of a distinctly identifiable dialect date back to a certain time doesnt mean it came into existance around that time, all it means is that the County of Castile was becoming sophisticated enough to start using this idiom of mountain people like shephards, hunters and peasants, in written documents but you can be guaranteed that it had existed as a distinct spoken idiom for a very long time before that happened.
Ok what you say is true and your edits are good. But I think the point was that castellano has been in contact/influenced by arabic since it can be considered a separate language/dialect with characteristics which are recognizable today. Thus the term "inception" which wanted to make that clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.251.117 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inception? Real languages are not Incepted

message: The list of words section is contrary to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It should be removed.Provocateur (talk)
:You have already made the same statement in the section This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, where it was adressed by me and other editors. You should discuss the points raised in that section, instead of just repeating the heading. Jotamar (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is really irritating and overloads the article. I propose a neutral solution: we'll copy-paste the list to List of Arabic loanwords in Spanish.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is the core of the article, the rest of the article is little more than decoration. Jotamar (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first part of the article belongs as it is a general description of how Arabic came to influence Spanish. On the other hand the list is effectively a dictionary. This sets a bad example and the rules are clear that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Provocateur (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary again. It doesn't say anything about word lists, it just states which words can work as entries for whole articles. Jotamar (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary

message: Why are some of the listed words in bold font and others not? Is this something purposeful or simply an inconsistency in the format? MartinezMD (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that whoever started the list marked in bold those words that were already done. It's not really harmful for the page. Jotamar (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold font 

message: I would add "Mareado = sick, from the Arabic word مريض (ma-ridh) which means the same."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.178.73 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sick 

message: It is too long to put those into this article.
--Mahogany115 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the list of Spanish words in Arabic origin into a new article 

message: Substituted at 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: User:Jotamar I reverted you because: Navarre is already included in the historical region of Basque country, Aragon has Arabic names right up to the Pyrenees (e.g. Almudevar, Alquezar) and Arabic names are absent in most of Catalonia, except on the Aragonese border (Alfarràs, Almenar, Alguaire, Alcanó, Almatret, Aldover) i.e. mainly in western Lleida.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again going with your own perceptions. From Alquézar to the French border there is an area as big as Asturias or Navarre. Just check a map. About Catalonia, check this: Toponímia d'origen islàmic a la catalunya vella. And about Navarre, why should it be included in a purely imagined political entity? The autonomous community is the effective existing administrative unit. So I revert. --Jotamar (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jotamar that is a good source. I stand corrected. And yes you are right about not using the concept of Euskal Herria, I guess. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jotamar I just read your source thoroughly and realized that this source you use does not support your opinion and it doesn't contradict my original perception. This study you presented is limited to Catalunya Vella which does not include Lleida, which was part of (Al Andalus until 1149) or much of Tarragona. What I had originally written was correct. Here is the source which supports my original edit. https://www.onomastica.cat/sites/onomastica.cat/files/14_epalza.PDFAsilah1981 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks; so what are the changes that you propose for the page? --Jotamar (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: None, really. It's not that it matters that much. It was just a curiosity. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rv Jotamar

message: Please stop. This article is very peaceful and is based on reliable academic sources. Give it a break and move on. There is no reason to edit war with Asqueladd and Jotamar.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Melroross

message: Its "Arrebatar"!!! So many arabisms and no one included this one which is a very common Spanish word! I'm quite proud to have detected it. Can someone please include? Thanks.Filologo2 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently arrebatar comes from rebato, a word already included in the list. You are free to edit this or any other WP page yourself, preferably using reliable sources. Regards, --Jotamar (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Rebatir, same etymology, completely different meaning. Both these words should be included.Filologo2 (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: One very common Spanish verb missing

message: Can be used in article. 
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2016/tfg_45415/TFG_2015-16_FTI_Khayat.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filologo2 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional source

message: Althought the Spanish wikipedia seems to state that Henares comes from Heno, most academic sources agree this is a castilian reinterpretation of the Arabic an-nahr which means the river. It is discussed in depth in this thread. https://www.celtiberia.net/es/conocimientos/?idp=6187 --Php2000 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source doesn't confirm at all the an-nahr theory, it rather casts doubts on it. Have you really read it? You should find a better source. --Jotamar (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, the section that mentions Alcalá de Henares is just a list of examples. It's only logical that uncertain or controversial etymologies should be left out of the list. --Jotamar (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Henares

message: There is huge amount of misinformation in this article. A huge amount of the data is wrong and not referenced. Most of the words mentioned in this article are no longer used and that should be noted. The list supplied, to me is like an unknown language as more than 95% of the words are unknown to a majority of Spanish speakers. It is like saying that mater is Spanish word as we used to speak Latin. I also find it interesting that a non-Arabic root is considered Arabic as it entered Spanish via Andalusi but a word that entered via Latin is not considered Latin if it has an Andalusi root (eg. Algebra entered via Latin). --Loaiza12 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Algebra" is late Latin, that is, an artificial kind of Latin which was used in the Middle Ages as a general language for most writings, but which was no longer spoken. The relevant origin of the word is whatever it was before that phase. --Jotamar (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Most words in the list are in the DRAE, therefore they are sourceable. I personally went through part of the list checking this, and marked with Cn those that don't appear in that dictionary. Of course I've also never heard many words in the list, but one cannot be sure about whether they're still used in some corner of the vast Spanish-speaking world. --Jotamar (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: :The first documents written in a language with some features specific of modern Spanish are ascribed to a number of documents from various monasteries in the area of Burgos and La Rioja...
I think this meant the first examples of a language, which were ascribed to those documents. I've edited the article accordingly—pero si estoy equivocada, siéntase libre de corregir mi corrección. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Jotamar (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Documents ascribed to documents"?