Talk:Veronese Riddle

This article says the riddle is in some sort of transitional dialect between Latin and Italian, but the Venetian language article claims it's in Venetian. I suspect that the former is the truth, but I'd like someone who knows better than me to reconcile the two. Binabik80 16:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. The transitional phase between Latin Language and Italian Language is actually foggy, and no one can say for sure when Italian was born. Many scholars prefers to see a continuum between Classical Latin and modern Italian, thought it might seem a little excessive. But the divide is not clear. Schiapparelli claimed to have found it in the Riddle, only to be objected by later studies. One could say that in the early middle ages there already were different kinds of Latin in different areas of the empire and that the same was inside Italy. These differences were inherited by dialects. But though early Italian has strong regional differences, the presence of dialects can only happen when a standard is established (in Italy's case, in the 1500s). So one can only speak of non-standard Italian before that. --Wikipedius 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But according to its article, Venetian isn't actually a dialect of Italian, though it's generally thought of (even by it's speakers) as such; it's a separate romance language more closely related to French and Spanish than it is Italian. Or is the Riddle still so close to Latin in it's language that it could just as easily be considered French or Spanish as it could Italian? Binabik80 23:41, 20 December 2005

(UTC)

Yes, at that time Venetian Language was too undifferentiated, as were French and Spanish. What makes Venetian an Italian language is not so much a statistical count, but its contribution to what will become the Italian language. Diachronically, it is not just the quantity that counts: Venetian was one of the tassels that made up Italian. Piedmontese is even closer to French, or is it French that is closer to Piedmontese? Dialects are (unfairly) considered sub-languages, in that political circumstances did not allow them to become national languages. But it is hard to say where to put the divide. The Po Valley has (like France) a Celtic substratum, then the Venetians adopted Occitan as their literary language during the late middle ages (a most widespread surname in Verona is Montresor), and in the Venetian Republic, which considered itself an Italian state, educated people spoke a dialect strongly tinged with Florentine (for eg. in the Senate). Maybe we could use a detailed linguistic atlas of Italy on Wikipedia like the one on UTET if that weren't copyrighted --[[User:Wikipedius|Mauro]] 11:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veronese Riddle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Some discrepancies and unclear parts

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)

Very confused and/or confusing use of the label 'Italian' in this article (for starters)

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)

"Italian-language" category is very misleading

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)

Which one is not written in Italian then? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

<<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)

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)

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)

(Moved the exchange above from Category talk:Italian-language manuscripts, as Barefoot through the chollas has indicated that the category is legitimate; they only object to Veronese Riddle's membership of it.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

I've removed the category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)