Talk:Catalan language/Archive 1

[Random Flames]

[I am repairing the Talk page by moving mile or so of scattershot invective and ad hominem attacks and blather under a ==section== so that the Talk page has a usable table of contents again. There are actually a couple of salient points in here, but a) the posters didn't bother to follow the guidelines for posting to talk pages; b) I don't have all day to sift them out, c) too of them are unsigned anyway, and d) most date from 2004 or so. It's quite a mess. At least now we can see the ToC and skip that crud if we want to! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)]

On 00:36 Sep 3, 2002 some anonymous 194.224.86.10 removed these paragraphs with no justification:

• on the name of the language ...(Catal&agrave, Valencià)
• on the areas where it is spoken ... Valencia (País Valencià, Spain), where it is coofficial with Spanish.

Now, if you do not like the facts of reality, would you mind to explain AND justify your version to us?

Interestingly, you omitted to mention the fact that there is "some" discussion about the relationship between Català and Valencià. You just make them the same... ...like you also do with Balear and others.

Let's not get into the mess of that discussion, but... shouldn't it at least be "hinted" that the discussion EXIST? (because that's a "fact of reality", isn't it?)

There are people claiming the Moon is made of green cheese as well. May be you think it worth of being hinted here too.

I notice that a recent edit by Perique des Palottes takes pretty much all of the content of Valencian (Valencià) and brings it into this article as well. I'm not going to start an edit war, but it seems like this must be a revival of the same fight that apparently occurred in September 2002. Can we please try again to reach a consensus on how to handle this? And can we please try to reach that consensus in the talk page rather than by simply reviving an old fight in the article itself without discussion.

To that I add that I would hope the discussion will consist of more than random jabs between Catalans and Valencianos. I would really like to see each side weigh in with references to what significant linguists hold what stake in the matter.

As I understand it (I'm a presumably neutral party, but this is not a language I even read particularly well, let alone speak), Catalan and Valencian are mutually intelligible dialects, as are the various Balearic dialects. However, in general usage, and for reasons more historical than linguistic (e.g. Barcelona once had a very big navy, which is often the difference between being deemed a langauge and a dialect; that's only partly a joke), the term "Catalan" without qualification usually refers to the language of Barcelona and of Catalonia generally; the other forms are usually deemed to be dialects of Catalan. (I realize that at some level this is an argument like whether Galego is a dialect of Portuguese or vice versa, not ultimately resolvable, but the point is that our arrangement of articles should probably follow the prevailing winds of professional linguists, with commentary explaining how alternate models may have equal objective validity. -- Jmabel 08:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A try for NPOV.

Catalan was ported in the 13th century to Balearic Islands and the newly created Valencian Kingdom by the Catalan and Aragonese invaders (notice that the area of Catalan language still extends to part of what is now the region of Aragon). Almost all muslim population of the Balearic Islands were expulsed. But, many muslim peasants stayed in many rural areas of the Valencian Kingdom, as it happened before in the lower Ebre basin (or Catalunya Nova).

During 13th and 14th centuries Barcelona city was the preeminent city and port of the confederation namelly ruled by the King of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia, Roussillon, Valencia, Balearic Islands, Sicily and later Sardinia and Naples). All prose writers of this era used the name 'Catalan' for their common language (e.g. the Catalan Ramon Muntaner, the Majorcan Ramon Llull, etc) The thing is more complicated with the poets as they wrote in a sort of artificial langue d'Oc in the tradition of the trovadours.

During 15 and 16 centuries the preeminence is taken by Valencia city, due to several factors, demographic changes, the royal court moves there, etc. So, in 15 century the name 'Valencian' starts to be used by Valencian writers to refer to their language.

In 16 century the name 'Llemosí' (that is, the occitan dialect of Limoges) is first documented as refering to Catalan. This attribution has no philological base, but it is explicable by the complex sociolinguistic frame of Catalan poetry of this era (Catalan versus trovadouresques Occitan). Ausias March himself was not sure what language he was writing in (it is clearly his contemporary Catalan or Valencian, and not Occitan anymore).

And then, during 16th century most of the Valencian elites switched languages to Castilian Spanish, as can be seen in the balance of languages of printed books in Valencia city: by the beginning of century Latin and Catalan (or Valencian if you prefer) are main languages of press, by the end of the century Spanish is main language of press. But rural areas and urban working classes continued to speak their vernacular language up to this day.

The issue of a different language or not for Catalan and Valencian has been politically agitated several times by extreme right wing parties in Valencia city area (curiously they have often been Spanish monoglots or not willing to allow any public presence of Valencian language).

Most current (21th century) Valencian speakers and writers use a consensus orthographical normative (Normes de Castelló, 1932) that allows for several diverse idiosincrasies of Valencian, Balearic, Nordoccidental Catalan and Oriental Catalan.

Any serious linguist and all universities teaching romance languages consider those linguistics variants to be part of the same language (sort of Canadian French vs French of France). The differences do exist, the accent of a Valencian is recognisable, there are differences in subjunctive terminations, and diverse Valencian lexical items. But those differences are not any wider than among Nordoccidental Catalan and Oriental Catalan.

In fact, Septentrional Valencian (spoken in Castelló province and Matarranya valley, a strip of Aragon) is more similar to Catalan of the lower Ebre basin (spoken in south half part of the Tarragona province and another strip of Aragon) than to apitxat Valencian (the Horta, Valencia city area).

I'm going to try to rewrite the above "try for NPOV" native English (not that it was far off), so we can discuss the POV issue separately from any issue of how correct the English is; I've also made some very small further NPOV changes. PdP, let me know if there is anywhere you think I'm misrepresenting your intent:

Catalan was exported in the 13th century to Balearic Islands and the newly created Valencian Kingdom by the Catalan and Aragonese invaders (note that the area of Catalan language still extends to part of what is now the region of Aragon). During this period, almost all of the Moslem population of the Balearic Islands were expelled, but many Moslem peasants remained in many rural areas of the Valencian Kingdom, as had happened before in the lower Ebre basin (or Catalunya Nova).

During 13th and 14th centuries Barcelona was the preeminent city and port of the confederation nominally ruled by the King of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia, Roussillon, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and - later - Sardinia and Naples). All prose writers of this era used the name 'Catalan' for their common language (e.g. the Catalan Ramon Muntaner, the Majorcan Ramon Llull, etc.) The matter is more complicated among the poets, as they wrote in a sort of artificial Langue d'Oc in the tradition of the Troubadours.

During the 15th and 16th centuries the city of Valencia gains preeminence in the confederation, due to several factors, including demographic changes and the fact that the royal court moved there. Presumably As a result of this shift in the balance of power within the confederation, in the 15th century the name 'Valencian' starts to be used by writers from Valencia to refer to their language.

In the 16th century the name 'Llemosí' (that is to say, "the Occitan dialect of Limoges") is first documented as being used to refer to this language. This attribution has no philological base, but it is explicable by the complex sociolinguistic frame of Catalan poetry of this era (Catalan versus Troubadouresque Occitan). Ausias March himself was not sure what to call the language he was writing in (it is clearly closer to his contemporary Catalan or Valencian than to the archaic Occitan).

Then, during the 16th century, most of the Valencian elites switched languages to Castilian Spanish, as can be seen in the balance of languages of printed books in Valencia city: at the beginning of century Latin and Catalan (or Valencian if you prefer) are main languages of press, but by the end of the century Spanish is main language of press. Still, rural areas and urban working classes have continued to speak their vernacular language up to this day.

Do we want to add here to that last sentence, "and Catalan and Valencian have undergone a major revival among urban elites in recent generations."?

The issue of whether Catalan and Valencian constitute different languages or merely dialects has been the subject of political agitation several times during what period? Post Franco? or earlier? by extreme right wing parties in the area of the city of Valencia. Curiously, the people claiming Valencian as a separate language have often been Spanish monoglots or people unwilling to allow any public presence of the Valencian language.

Most current (21st century) Valencian speakers and writers use a consensus orthographical normative (Normes de Castelló, 1932) that allows for several diverse idiosyncrasies of Valencian, Balearic, Nordoccidental Catalan, and Oriental Catalan.

All universities teaching Romance languages, and virtually all linguists, consider these all to be linguistic variants of the same language (similarly to Canadian French vs. Metropolitan French). We would do well here to quote a very respectable authority holding this opinion, preferably one from Valencia or abroad, rather than from Catalunya. Differences do exist, the accent of a Valencian is recognisable, there are differences in subjunctive terminations, and there are diverse Valencian lexical items (word differences), but those differences are not any wider than among Nordoccidental Catalan and Oriental Catalan.

In fact, Septentrional Valencian (spoken in the Castelló province and Matarranya valley, a strip of Aragon) is more similar to the Catalan of the lower Ebre basin (spoken in southern half of Tarragona province and another strip of Aragon) than to apitxat Valencian (spoken in the city of Horta, in the province of Valencia).

We would do well here to point to the most respectable authority holding a dissenting opinion.

-- Jmabel 22:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dividing to win -- This is what Spain's doing, even a blind person can see that -- spreding confusion among people that knowns less. The only false POV is the political one, that argues that they are different languages.

[[user:PedroPVZ|Pedro] from Portugal

"...sharing edition with its Spanish release..." doesn't make sense. Nosoccomtothom, could you paraphrase this? It's OK if it's easiest for you to paraphrase in Spanish or Catalan, I can presumably translate. -- Jmabel 18:39, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, what i wanted to mean is that El Periódico de Catalunya has two releases either in Spanish and Catalan. Both of them have the same identical news but translated in one or other language. How do you think this idea is best shown? Regards User:Nosoccomtothom (answer transferred from my talk page -- Jmabel 05:05, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC))

Hi, I want to know where the translation for the central Catalan come from. Is this very very old Catalan?? I'm Catalan and I understand this text is not correct at all. There's a lot of errors. An actual correct version of the text would be:

Un home només tenia dos fills. El més jove va dir al seu pare: "Ja és hora que sigui el meu propi amo i que tingui cèntims; me n'he d'anar a veure món. Partiu la vostra herència i doneu-me el que em toqui". "Ai, fill meu", va dir el pare, "com vulguis; ets un dolent i Déu et castigarà". I després va obrir una capsa i va partir tot el que tenia en dues parts. Al cap d'uns quants dies, el dolent se'n va anar del poble molt tibat i sense dir adéu a ningú. Va travessar molta terra erma, molts boscos i molts rius, i va arribar a una gran ciutat on es va gastar tots els seus cèntims.

"Cèntims" is ok but "diners" is more commonly used.

Perhaps this translation is an old one when the people didn't have a proper grammar but at least in the sentence "Ja és hora que sigui el meu propi amo i que ..." the "i" conjunction is missing. And, anyway, even if this is archaic Catalan I think it's better to put an actual correct version. I'm also wondering about the translation of the other Catalan dialects!! --Rusian04 04:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As the article says, these come from Manuel Milà i Fontanals work in 1861. That is presumably the period of the examples (which come from the Catalan-language version of the article, the only thing added here is my translation of the passage into English for the benefit of English-language readers.) Yes, some of these come off as very archaic. I read Catalan pretty well, but writing it is another matter; no one seems to have seen fit in the Catalan Wikipedia to add modern equivalents; I think that would be worth doing, but I also think it is very vaulable to preserve examples of the older, more extreme, dialects. My own Catalan isn't good enough to be confident in writing that; you are a native speaker. It would be a useful addition, certainly here in the English Wikipedia and probably even in the Catalan Wikipedia.

I would quite disagree with the view behind "didn't have a proper grammar." The fact that the grammar of one time and place differs from another doesn't mean that one of them is wrong. Just like modern Catalan isn't "very bad Latin" (or vice versa), the various 19th-century regional dialects were not unsuccessful attempts to talk like a Barcelones. They were (presumably correct) uses of the dialect of their time and place. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Majorquinian" doesn't appear in Google outside Wikipedia. The English adjectives for the islands are "Majorcan" and "Minorcan". --Henrygb 23:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language politics in Valencia

The following was recently and anonymously cut: "...by extreme right wing parties in the area of the city of Valencia. Curiously, the people claiming Valencian as a separate language have often been Spanish monoglots or people unwilling to allow any public presence of Valencian." I believe the cut material to be correct, but probably the sort of thing that should have a citation. I would welcome its restoration, especially with appropriate citation, but I have neither a reference nor first-hand knowledge. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

The current ruckus is (mostly) between ERC (leftist catalan independentists) and PP (Spanish centralist). Curiously, the Valencian side is mostly advocated by a party which is (to put it mildly) unsympathetic to decentralization and national minorities. I would like to know from someone in Valencia what the position of UV (valencian nationalist) is, because I can´t find that in the Spanish national media. — Miguel 12:32, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

UV is not a valencian nationalist party - the valencian nationalist party is BLOC, which claims Valencian and Catalan to be the same language. 62.43.177.47

"Passive" vs "Active" Speakers

The article states that Catalan is spoken by 6.5 million people "actively," and 12 million "passively." I have never for another language heard such a distinction made. Can someone please explain? I would think that a person who understands a language "passively" cannot be considered a speaker of a language. If he cannot speak the language, he is not a speaker of the language. Sounds like some inflation of numbers for political purposes if you ask me. Peter Wye January 16th 2005

The difference it's quite clear: in Catalonia we learn all both Spanish and Catalan in school. We (almost) all can speak both languages without any problem. However, there are people who use in practice (almost) only one of this languages. I am, for example a passive spanish speaker: I can speak it perfectly but I use it only in very rare cases (to speak with a Mexican friend, to travel arround the world, etc).

Xavier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.139.150.31 (talk • contribs) 1 Dec 2005.

Partisan and unencyclopedic edits

User:68.6.123.6 is making massive, partisan, and unencyclopedic edits to this article. However, I am not sure that the substance of what he/she is saying is entirely incorrect. Therefore, I am not immediately reverting.

Someone more expert than I will probably want to look through these edits and determine if any of them are worth keeping, possibly in somewhat modified form. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Backwards, very backwards

Of what possible use is Diccionari Invers de la Llengua Catalana, recently added to external links, based on spelling Catalan words backwards? Seems like basically a joke. I think it should be removed, but thought I'd bring the question here first. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno... it could be useful to find rhymes when writing poetry. — Chameleon 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A retrograde dictionary is used very often in linguistics. It can be used to research suffixes and verb endings. Such a dictionary exists in almost every language (e.g. for English you could search every word ending in -ship). -- Deef1981

Number of speakers

Number of speakers was changed without citation from "6.5 million active, 12 million passive" to "More than 7'5 milion". Aside from the fact that neither "7'5" nor "milion" exists in English... is there a source for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• The number keeps bouncing all over the place, with absolutely no citations provided. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue gives 6,667,328, based on 1996 data. Would "about 7 million," based on that number, be acceptable? john k 03:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The information in the corresponding section of the article, based on official sources (links are also provided), appears to be more detailed and recent than the one in the Ethnologue. The sentence «More than 7.5 million» in the table should be restored...--Periku 10:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever is going on, would someone please get the citations into the article? It's OK if we give a range, and indicate our multiple, conflicting sources, that's normal. But I would point out that people who can merely "understand" a language are not generally counted into the population of those who speak the language. Hence, serious doubts about the 11 million currently claimed in the article.

Is everyone who "can speak" Catalan a first-language speaker of Catalan? john k 05:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The 11 million figure is indeed wrong: people that merely understand Catalan are, of course, not speakers. Not all the 7.5 million speakers are first-language speakers, but this distinction is really fuzzy, particularly in Spain (Catalonia, for example, is arguably the most perfectly bilingual society in the world): the Ethnologue itself doesn't bother to provide estimates...--Periku 07:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The bilingualism is certainly the case; still, can we try to cite (in the article) the sources of the figures we are using? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

During Franco

During the Franco regime (1939-1975), the use of Catalan was banned, along with other regional languages in Spain such as Basque and Galician. Following the death of Franco in 1975 and the restoration of democracy, the ban was lifted

Certainly, there was activism and publications in Catalan and Basque (the initial stages of Batua itself) and Galician in the late Franco era. Somebody should clarify what was allowed, when and in which circumstances. --Error 7 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

There was a ban for the use of any of these languages in any public place, even when two people talked in a restaurant from one table to another. Except for the strictily private area, the use of catalan wasn't allowed at all.--Elgie 23:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If Catalan was banned then maybe Elgie or someone else will cite the law or decree banning it, and maybe Elgie or someone else will produce evidence of anyone ever having been prosecuted or harassed in locations like restaurants. Certainly all the evidence (I'm not talking about reports along the lines of "Hey, my grandad says he was punched in 1942 for speaking Catalan") I have come across is to the contrary. For example, publishing in Catalan in Catalonia recommences in 1940 - I believe the monks up on Montserrat got the ball rolling - and speeds up at the end of WWII, by which stage there is a specialist Catalan bookshop operating publicly in central Barcelona. Amateur and professional theatre is also available in Catalan from at least the late 40s, and I've got school yearbooks from the time that make liberal use of Catalan. Certainly, a decree seems to have been issued by Wenceslao González Oliveros, Barcelona's civil governor after the war, forbidding public servants from using Catalan in- or outside public buildings. However, that's not the same as a blanket ban, and anecdotal evidence (sorry) is that it was not enforced for very long or very widely, partly because local officials up in the hills often weren't very good at Spanish and the public wouldn't necessarily have understood them anyway. Certainly, all talk of a ban having been in place in the 50s and 60s is nonsense. A more truthful statement would be something like "The use of Catalan in institutional contexts was inhibited, particularly during the early stages of the dictatorship." (User:Kalebeul 14 Aug 2005)

Sounds like this calls for some serious research byu someone. As Error remarked above, somebody should clarify what was allowed, when and in which circumstances. Shouldn't be that hard to document, I'm sure there is a book on this, albeit probably not in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

If somebody does this, don't forget to document in Spain under Franco. --Error 11:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cases of fines for the use of Catalan, not only in places like restaurants, but even in telephone calls, is indeed documented but as far as I know they happened only during the Spanish Civil War and the first months of the post-war period. It is well-known the edict of Eliseo Álvarez Arenas, military chief-of-occupation of Barcelona: «Estad seguros, catalanes, de que vuestro lenguaje en el uso privado y familiar no será perseguido.» A completely different thing was the public use of the language, which will be brutally repressed during franquism, particularly during its early period (1939-1944). It is true that the first book legally published in Catalan in post-war Catalonia was already in 1942, but publication had many restrictions for a long time (for example, it is very significant that translations were banned until the 60s). Catalan was never allowed as official second language while Franco was alive: not even the use of catalan christian names was officially permitted (!), let alone the presence of Catalan in the public educational system... Regards.--Periku 01:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Catalan was not an official language earlier (since Philip V of Spain?) I don't know about earlier use in the educational system (it was a competence for the municipalities, I think). --Error 11:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Catalan was an official language in Catalonia during the 1932-1939 period, according to the corresponding Statute of Autonomy of 1932, Article 2: «Catalan is, along with Castilian (Spanish), an official language in Catalonia.» Catalan language had already been introduced in the primary schools of Catalonia with the Decreto de Bilingüismo of 29/4/1931; after 1932, it will be introduced even in the University. Public education in Catalonia during the Second Republic was considerably plural: there were schools managed by the central government, the catalan Generalitat, the municipalities... see e.g. this article (in Spanish). Regards.--Periku 17:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who do not read Spanish, the quotation in the previous not reads, "You may be sure, Catalans, that your private and family usage of your dialect will not be persecuted." The Spanish lenguaje is—at least as I understand it—much closer in meaning to the English dialect than language; the latter would normally be rendered as idioma. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. Although I think that the best rendering of the Spanish «lenguaje» is still language, it is true that «lenguaje» is not as usual and may have some negative connotation that «idioma» or «lengua» don't have, although it is not as explicit as in the word «dialect». Regards.--Periku 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Periku. I think that you're agreeing - and Solé i Sabaté, who you cite, certainly would - that the phrase used in the article is false and should be changed. Solé i Sabaté's research is interesting and deserves further investigation. I suspect, for example, that many of the cases of closures and destruction cited had less to do with any desire to suppress Catalan language or culture than with the determination within the new regime to put an end to secessionist and left-wing activities. I've documented the great boom in sardana activity during the dictatorship and would be most surprised if this were an isolated occurrence.Kalebeul 16:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not quite sure of agreeing with you. Although the sentence in the article could be qualified, there is enough evidence for the desire of the francoism to suppress Catalan language and culture, which was particularly brutal during its early period. Certainly, important members of the illustrated fascism as Dionisio Ridruejo or Serrano Suñer had a different opinion (cf. Solé i Sabaté: [1]), but they were not listened. The example of the sardana is indeed an isolated occurrence, as Solé i Sabaté also indicates (ibid.): «The only manifestation of Catalan identity tolerated was the sardana, it being considered a regional dance and as such an example of the “richness of Spanish folklore”.» Regards.--Periku 10:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Francoism didn't criticise much traditional traits such as the sardana or traditional theater because it wanted Catalan to be seen as a regional, old thing, and a culture which can't achieve any normality at all. Thus, only traditional theater, sardana and medieval poetry were allowed. In fact, some writers tried to sneak their works under censorship by claiming they were medieval or traditional works.

62.43.177.47

Oh, and by the way, something as simple as giving your child a Catalan name was banned during the regime - this should be the definitive proof that Francoism was certainly UNfriendly to the use of Catalan... Sputnikpanicpuppet 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so easy. I guess there was no problem with Montserrat or Nuria (but there would be with Núria or Jordi). --Error 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word forbidden and banned, as it would seem there is no evidence for this. I have put repressed as it certainly wasn't permitted in many circumstances, if you can think of a better word, change it. But "forbidden" needs a decree or law from the time to source it. user:Boynamedsue

Adéu siau may be singular too

Adéu siau is not always plural (see Gran diccionari de la llengua catalana: Adéu siau, definition in Catalan). It's just a more formal way of saying good bye.

--Outlyer 19:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

EU Constitution

--Yodajaus, Im pretty new on editing, but I saw a big mistake in this article, it said Catalan and Valencian versions of the european constitution were identical. This is obviously (if you read them) false, even the first sentence isn't identical. I know some mass media said they were, but please download both versions and read only two pages. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.2.146 (talk • contribs) 27 Aug 2005.

• Can someone indicate where to find those? http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm does not give either of these. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try http://www.constitucioneuropea.es/index35c3.html?op=doc. There's even a Balear version. :)--Theathenae 18:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried, but my browser crashed on the massive PDF files. If you are accessing these successfully, could you let us know exactly what the respective first sentences are? They'd presumably make a great example for the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the constitution's excessive length has been one of the major criticisms articulated by its detractors. :) I've skimmed through the three versions and have so far found no difference whatsoever. They are identical as far as I can tell. As you can see on the website, the document's title is Tractat pel qual s'establix una Constitució per a Europa for all three. This doesn't mean I think Valencian shouldn't be considered a separate language. As with Serbian and Croatian, this is entirely a political question and has little to do with linguistics. If the Valencians want their language to be considered separate, that is their prerogative. And spoken Valencian sounds much closer to Castilian than central Catalan.--Theathenae 06:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the opening paragraph of the preamble in Catalan, Balearic and Valencian: Catalan
INSPIRANT-SE en l’herència cultural, religiosa i humanista d’Europa, a partir de la qual s’han desenvolupat els valors universals dels drets inviolables i inalienables de la persona humana, la democràcia, la igualtat, la llibertat i l’Estat de dret;

Balearic
INSPIRANT-SE en l’herència cultural, religiosa i humanista d’Europa, a partir de la qual s’han desenvolupat els valors universals dels drets inviolables i inalienables de la persona humana, la democràcia, la igualtat, la llibertat i l’Estat de dret;

Valencian
INSPIRANT-SE en l’herència cultural, religiosa i humanista d’Europa, a partir de la qual s’han desenvolupat els valors universals dels drets inviolables i inalienables de la persona humana, la democràcia, la igualtat, la llibertat i l’Estat de dret;

--Theathenae 07:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Having read through them in slightly more detail now, it is obvious that they are all identical but shouldn't be. Valencian seua occurs in the Catalan document instead of Catalan seva, as does huit instead of vuit. I remember reading somewhere that the Catalan authorities deliberately submitted a Valencianised version in order to emphasise the unitat de la llengua. This means that the documents could be slightly different if the Catalan version were actually written in pure standard Catalan.--Theathenae 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are the same difference as in British English and American English with words such as "colour" and "color", "authorise" and "authorize", "hood" and "bonnet", "trunk" and "boot", etc... but surely both are the same language, aren't these?. In fact, there are more differences than between valencian and catalan. --Martorell 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying perfectly well, but the standard forms in an official Catalan document should be seva and vuit, should they not?--Theathenae 03:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. All forms are considered correct by IEC.

62.43.177.47

Yodajaus

May have been changed after catalanist pressure on government, but initially valencian title was "Tractat pel qual s'instituïx una constitució per a Europa".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.2.19 (talk • contribs) 29 Aug 2005.

That said, it is quite clear that the remark about the official versions varying in the first sentence is apparently not true. If someone can cite to demonstrate that politics was behind the versions being absolutely identical, that would be worth mentioning, but until someone does so, the old text that simply says thear are identical should probably stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence lies in Valencian forms (seua, huit) being used in the official Catalan version instead of standard Catalan (seva, vuit).--Theathenae 03:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Both variants are official according to IEC (Institut d'Estudis Catalans). Both can be used. Of course in Catalonia, seva and vuit are much more used. However, those differences are not as many as differences between British and American English or between European and Brazilian Portuguese (which have two official different spellings without making them separate languages). Best regards, Marco Neves 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maps

Why does the article have two rather similar dialect maps? At the very least, can we place them near one another to facilitate comparison? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No explanation forthcoming, so I'll remove one. --87.189.80.209

Yes in Catalan

Is yes 'oc' as in Occitan ?--Jondel 07:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Found 'si' in the online dictionaries.--Jondel 07:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's "sí".

The form 'oc' does also exist, but it was only used in Medieval literature, like that of Ramon Llull. 62.43.177.47

I lived for 53 years in Mallorca (one of the balearic islands) and never heard "oc" for "yes", they allways said "si". Coronellian 18:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oc as in Occitan (langue d'oc), spoken in the Languedoc region in France and elsewhere, represents the affirmative, as opposed to Oïl, as in the Languedoïl. Both mean yes.
Oc comes from the Latin Hoc. Although hoc was used in proto-catalan, it has not been used since, and modern Catalan and its speakers do not recognise it. Yes is thus only Sí (with an accent, otherwise it means If, the conditional).
--YuriBCN 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hecho diferencial

Removed from the "Classification" section: "It is frequently associated with separatist activity from Catalonia, which wants to split from Spain." At best this was misplaced. But more importantly, for the most part, the Catalans do not speak Catalan as a political statement. They speak it because it is their native language.

This reminds me of a joke, circa 1996: "I think it's perfectly normal that the Catalans speak Catalan. The real hecho diferencial would be for them to speak Gallego." -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the article has no numbers on how many Catalan speakers have it as first language or home language. They would be interesting, supposing it has meaning in the many cases of bilingual individuals. --Error 02:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV rewrite

If there is no oposition, I will rewrite the portion regarding the Valencian-Catalan relation in a more NPOV, presenting the two sides of the issue. -- Afaus 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The other issue is marginal, and exclussively politic, there isn't any linguistic matter. The official language academy in the Land of Valencia (Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua) defend the unity of the language, altough it also states that names used for the whole language are two: Catalan, and Valencian. The concept is "one language, two names" isn't unique, it's the same case for two names for Spanish, "castellano" and "español". --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I made considerable further edits, mostly to remove redundancies, be concise, add links, etc., and I reorganized the material. I don't believe I cut anything substantive; if I did, it was by mistake. I did cut the following sentence, because I couldn't see why it's there: "Consider also the web sites of the Valencian universities: Universitat Jaume I de Castelló, Universitat de València or Universitat d'Alacant." This tells the (presumably English-speaking) reader to "consider" three Valencian-language web sites, without indicating what they should note about them; I read Catalan/Valencian moderately well (which probably puts me in with 1-2% of native English speakers), but still I have no idea what I was supposed to notice by "considering" these. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

maps

I find the maps on this page hard to read without a larger context. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

French recognition

On December 10, 2007 the Conseil Général of Pyrénées-Orientales passed a law "officially recognizing, together with French, the Catalan language as a language of the département" [2] [3]. Can we state then that Catalan is an official language of that territory? --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think not. According to the French Constitution the pnly official language in France is French. Catalan has simply been recognised as a language of the departement without any legal implications.--88.11.220.90 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to Spanish

At present, the article contains precious little information on the relationship between Catalan and Spanish - surely one of the main areas of inquiry for anyone who has looked up this article. I understand that a "comparison" section was removed as OR, but can't someone who knows something of the subject do something here? This is crucial information which is completely missing. Mr. IP (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They won't do that. Catalans and spanish have nothing to do. (irony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Catalan in 88 languages rank

Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonia Gobern) link and font: http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/Llengcat/menuitem.df5fba67cac781e7a129d410b0c0e1a0/?vgnextoid=fe8c949b22741110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fe8c949b22741110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=detall&contentid=65502b4d4bc87110VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD —Preceding unsigned comment added by AguaitantPV (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

More speakers than Danish

"The number of people who speak it is greater than those who speak Finnish or Danish, and it is equivalent to the number of speakers of Swedish, and Greek in Europe." - What's the relevance of this? Lfh (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph was recently added by 194.151.190.23 on August 27 [4]. I think the editor may have been trying to give some comparison, but I almost reverted it right away that day but decided not to be revert happy. It seems like a lot of the comparison is just random languages, and there isn't a source for all the claims. Ethnologue has Greek at 12.3 million native speakers and Catalan at 6.7 million native speakers. Maybe by putting "equivalent to the number of speakers of Swedish, and Greek in Europe", the editor was trying to exclude Swedish and Greek speakers outside of Europe, but that is a very dubious comparison in my opinion. I think the first part about the ranking in the European Union may be appropriate if it's sourced, but I think the rest of it can just be removed. Kman543210 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Our own table puts Catalan well below 7th in the EU, and that was calculated pre-Enlargement. I hate to get involved in this "league table" style of language assertiveness at all, but the claim as it stands does seem dubious. Lfh (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not accurate, the entire paragraph should probably be removed. Kman543210 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Word Origin

Aubergine comes from the French word for eggplant, which, itself (if I'm not mistaken) comes from Arabic (think berenjena in Spanish or berinjela in Portuguese). Even if this weren't the case - that it comes from Arabic - we would have to assume that the word in French, Spanish and Portuguese all come from Catalan.

Here is information from www.etymonline.com (an English etymological resource).

aubergine 1794, from Fr., "fruit of the eggplant" (Solanum esculentum), dim. of auberge "a kind of peach," from Sp. alberchigo "apricot." But Klein derives the Fr. from Catalan alberginera, from Arabic al-badinjan "the eggplant," from Pers. badin-gan, from Skt. vatin-ganah. As a color like that of the eggplant fruit, it is attested from 1895.

So, not even Arabic can claim this one as original as it goes through Persian and Sanskrit. So, it's much like saying we get the English word tomato or chocolate from Spanish, when in reality we get it from Nahuatl (the Aztecs), who probably got it from some other Meso-American group.

Tom Douglas Los Angeles, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.64 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In nord-western catalan you can find both "alberginia" (eggplant) and "aubergi" (peach, source:http://dcvb.iecat.net/). Both pronounced with [au-] starting, as done in the nord-western dialect. So I would expect two different origins for such different things. The spanish origin for aubergi (alberchigo) could also have an arabic origin. Like a lot of starting al- words. Another thing that points in this direction is the midle-east origin of both goods (peach, Prunus persicae, and eggplant form India).

JC Lleida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.222.55 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

new link

there's a new resource for learning catalan online. it is promoted by consorci per la normalitzacio linguistica and the ramon llull insitute it is in Català | English | Castellano | Français | Deutsch, and it has several levels. i think it's quite complete so i'd be a good idea adding it. http://www.parla.cat/ --Josepsbd (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix or vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_language&curid=5282&diff=248054983&oldid=248013582: I have no idea whether this is a fix of vandalism. Would someone with native-speaker knowledge (and maybe some knowledge of Gaudì) please take a look and either confirm here that it is good or that you have reverted? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing it out! It was indeed a nonsense and I've just removed it. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the language and the Infobox

There is a contradiction in the Infobox information of the Catalan language: Everywhere in the main article, language appears as catalan, following the linguistic criteria ( The Catalan language entry in the Britannica, another entry: Merriam-Webster, an interview to the main authority of the Valencian "We agree that there is only one language" (in Catalan), ...]), not the controverted political criteria. But in the Infobox: the name appears for 2 or 3 times as Catalan, Valencian language. You can see, also, that in the Language codes part of the Infobox it appears, only, as Catalan, because the international recognition is for only one language with some variants, one of them named Valencian. As I've said, this is the scientific criteria. All other criteria are opinions derived from political interests (you can opine that the the sun turns over the earth, if you want. But the scientific criteria is that is the earth what turns over the sun, sure!) So, I'm going to revert the mistake in the Infobox, naming the language, only, as Catalan.--Tripallokavipasek (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What you say, although essentially true, does not imply that we should remove the denomination Valencian. The fact is that it is a pluricentric language with two regulating institutions, IEC and AVL, that use different two different denominations but never deny the unity of the language. Taking into account that we have two separate articles in Wikipedia (Catalan language and Valencian; purportedly to deal extensively with Valencian varieties in a separate article) we should not give the impression that this implies that they correspond to different languages. That's why it is important to keep both official denominations in infoboxes. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dialects of Catalan

I added a section on the dialect in the Empordà region. This was deleted on the grounds that it didn't fit with the other sections on dialects. I understand this, but my contribution was too small to be a page on itself. It would be interesting to have a page or a section highlighting the differences between the dialects, though I only have a small bit of information on one dialect. How can we proceed to include this kind of information, either as a new page or a new section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete maloney (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, I have seen that you followed the suggestion and added your contributions to Central Catalan, where they belong. I further encourage you to provide your sources (as it stands now that article is unreferenced). Cheers! --Carles Noguera (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Typing the middle dot

I am studying Catalan and i want to type it. I can't find the middle dot - punt volat on keyboards. I tried it on Windows and on Fedora. I couldn't find a "Catalan" layout in either of them, they only have "Spain".

Any help? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think i found it - Shift-3, right? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, copy this: ·

Hold down the Alt key while typing 0183 on the numeric keypad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.23.79 (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inverted question mark

Are there any rules for using the Inverted question and exclamation marks in Catalan?

See discussion at Talk:Inverted question and exclamation marks#Used in Catalan?. Thanks in advance for any help. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In Catalan they aren't used but, if the sentence is too long or ambiguous(you don't know where the interrogative or exclamative sentence begins) you can use them.--Jarna3 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Long quote example?

Besides the short phrases, maybe there should be a long quote example of the language, possibly with translations in Spanish and/or other Romance languages, to give a bit more of the "feel." It's just that I don't get a lot out of the short phrases. --True (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Hey! I'd like someone to correct one thing. Here in the "Catalan language" article says that català is #93 in the ranking of languages by number of native speakers. But in the Valencian article says that catalan is in the #88 of the same ranking. How is it possible? I'd correct it but I don't know which of them is the good one! :P--Layonard (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aioli etymology

Merriam-Webster's dictionary says that "aioli" is of Occitan origin. Occitan is close to Catalan, but it's separate. If there's no source that defines the etymology of aioli as Catalan, then it should be removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The word/compound exists in all Occitano-Romance languages, and it isn't spelled aioli in any of them, so I wouldn't attribute it to either specifically. It's either older than the split of Occitano-Romance into separate languages or it has spread in a way that blurs its origin. Or maybe allium et oleum goes back to the Romans?--87.162.23.79 (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alioli is a catalan word (sorry for my bad English). This word comes from: All i oli (oil + garlic)--Asfarer (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural splendour

"During the 15th century, during the Valencian Golden Age, the Catalan language reached its highest cultural splendor, which was not matched again until La Renaixença, 4 centuries later." Could this sentence be improved in some way to make the concept of "cultural splendour" a little more understandable?Jimjamjak (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Very badly written article

I made a start but then gave up. Much of this is clearly not written by a speaker of English (perhaps not a writer of any language). Missed articles, "doesn't" "isn't" "like" and just gibberish - it reads very badly. Would anyone care to tidy this up - I would rather it be an experienced linguist rather than me; after all I may "mess up." This really is very badly written —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.11.74 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Learning Catalan" section

Is this a joke? Per WP:NOTGUIDE, it ought to be removed. Unfortunately, this article seems replete with unencyclopediac content. RobertM525 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and removed it. RobertM525 (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, many sections need to be rebuilt. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Andorran Dialect

There doesn't seem to be any information on this page covering the dialect of Catalan in Andorra. I can't find any page on Wikipedia dealing with it. That should be something to note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.242.125 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Andorran is included in North-Western Catalan :) Jɑυмe (xarrades) 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

English

This article mixes two written variants of English, British (Commonwealth English) and American English. Since Catalan language is entirely spoken in Europe, I suggest to only use British spelling. 31.96.113.39 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is written in American English already and does not need to be changed gratuitously. If there were examples of British English, then please point them out, because I could not find any matches for a search on "ise" and "our". It seems to me that the preponderance was written in American English. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN says, When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. I do not see how Catalan has any national ties to Commonwealth nations (nor does it have national ties to the United States or American English-speaking countries), so it cannot be argued that national ties are a reason to rewrite the English variety already present.

Valencian

It's completely wrong to make an exception with valencian. The name of Catalan is the same, wherever you go. Valencian is one of the dialects inside the Catalan. It would be the same to say that in USA they do not speak english, but american. The problem arise when the name of the language is related to the name of an autonomous community (Catalonia), so it seems that Valencian is a minor language. This is also completely false. In catalonia there are other dialects, like the central Catalan. But if you consider that must be noted that in Valencia the language is Valencian, then in the Balearic Island the languages are Mallorquí, Eivissenc and Menorquí. The problem with Valencian is more about a political topic than linguistic. --Jose piratilla (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am valencian and I don't speak catalan, I speak valencian. You can write false information if you like but almost 100 percent of valencians would agree with me. Catalan people say they are being treated unfairly by Spain, and they say they feel they are being disdained by spanish speakers. Don't you realise you are doing exactly the same thing with valencians? We respect you and so does the vast majority of spanish people, but you are not respecting Valencia and their own identity. You like talking about deserving your identity to be respected, well, start by repecting other people's identity. When I went to school I learnt Valencian, not Catalan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.185.39 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the only one writing false information here is you. As usual, this becomes a political issue rather than a linguistic one. Wanting to deny truth won't make it change, you know. Languages don't originate from nothing. Valencian is a variant of Catalan that became a language after James I of Aragon conquered the land and it was populated by Catalan people. From there, it has evolved to a variant called Valencian but the origin of it is clearly Catalan. What do you people think Valencian comes from, otherwise? This is denying history. Please do tell me where, according to 100% of Valencians, valencian comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.17.60 (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, when did I say Valencian didn't come from catalan?? I just read it over again in case I did by mistake. Well I didn't. I have never denied that (there is nothing bad or embarassing about that)! The only thing I said is that They are different, or is the fact that valencian comes from catalan make them the same thing??? Ok take this as an example: Spanish, Italian , etc etc all come from latin... but they are not LATIN!!!! According to you we should!!! Valencian comes from catalan, cool, but they are two DIFFERENT languages and therefore should not be treated as if they were one thing. And valencian speakers should account as catalan speakers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant should NOT account as catalan speakers(sorry, my bad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain then, what does Valentian have that makes it as different as to be considered another language? I mean, where is the boundary? Because, according to you Valentian is a new language evolved from Catalan, and when did it achieve the category of language? You know, this has to be done by convention. Spanish and Italian come from Latin, as you say but they are considered different languages than Latin; and I can only agree to that. I would appreciate if you could empirically clarify what makes Valentian a different language from Catalan, as differences are minor. Do you think then that Cuban or Mexican, which have some differences from Castillian Spanish should be considered as different languages? Catalans and Valencians who speak Valencian, who after all nowadays are a minority, do not get the feeling of speaking different languages because there are almost none. Belive me, a Catalan from Barcelona and a Catalan from rural Lleida wouldn't feel less differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.17.60 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are few differences. There are differences in prononciation (not many though) but the main differences are in writting. But the thing is you can't say valencian is the same thing as catalan. After doing some research, i found out that valencian comes from latin according to some people. So not everyone thinks it comes from catalan, to be honest I have my doubts now. Most catalan separatists believe in the "catalan countries" "paisos catalans" and are trying to unify catalonia and valencia, so I think the ones that are using politics are not the valencians. But I am not going into that. I am no expert so I cannot prove anything, my opinion is based on what I read (like the vast majority of people). I was thinking, if they are the same thing, people in catalonia speak valencian don't they? I am just asking for respect, that's all. The truth is I don't live in Valencia, but I can understand and speak valencian. I can write a little as well. But my grandfather who is a "pure" valencian feels very offended when he hears people say valencian is a dialect of catalan, and that it is "less important" because it isn't. Some people in Catalonia think that valencians and catalans share the same cultural identity and heritage which is completely false. That's where I am going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is curious to read your message and see that is talking a lot about politics when you just say you are not. This is not a forum about politics. Here we are talking exclusively about linguistics. You have expressed your opinion about something else and maybe there are other places in wikipedia where you could do that, not here. The person who expressed the first opinion about Catalan and Valencian and me are only talking about the language, nothing else. I also think that if one reads your first and last opinion again they seem to contradict each other to some extent. I thought you had learnt Valencian in school but apparently you can only understand and write it a little, besides now Valencian doesn't come from Catalan, either. I think this is also showing us about the honesty of some people writing in this discussion. Wikipedia is trying to be a serious encyclopedia; it cannot talk about what "people" say because people can say they are tall and handsome when in fact they are short and ugly. You can say whatever you want but facts are facts and up to now, a Catalan and a Valencian who speak to each other (in Catalan and Valencian) do not feel as if they were speaking different languages as, e.g. a Spaniard and an Italian would do in spite the fact that they could be able to understand each other to a certain extent. Who is talking here about identity? Who am I or anyone else to talk about people's identity?! The identity of Valencians is something that should be left completely up to them, shouldn't it? Besides we are talking about something very complicated that even belongs to the sphere of privacy. No one is trying to say that Valencians and Catalans have something else than a common language (at least, in this section; again, to talk about other issues, refer to the appropiate section). About your question, well, said like that yes, people in Catalonia speak Valencian because it is the same thing (neither more or less important, nobody said that either), doesn't matter how you call it. Double-check the article and the opinions here: nobody in this section has shown lack of respect for Valencians; if that happens somewhere else, then complain there. This is a section about linguistics, and linguists, up to now, agree on Catalan and Valencian being the same thing (the language, nothing more and nothing else than that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.17.60 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on! I spent about half an hour writing a reply and it wasn't posted! To sum up what I said, I don't live in Valencia at this moment, but I did and I learnt valencian in school. In valencia, valencian is not compulsory and all subjects are taught in spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. What is the problem in the article we're trying to address? What's the change being proposed? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little funny! I think you should refer to the first post of this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baes1234567 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the whole discussion. Still not sure. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've lived in Barcelona, Lleida, Valencia, Guadalajara, Murcia and Seville during my life. Some things I've noted is that: a) spanish language spoken in Seville is far more different to that in Guadalajara than the difference between the language talked in Barcelona and Valencia and b) Lleida's language is very similar to that in Valencia. From living in Murcia for a long time, I got some words very peculiar and very local that of course no valencian had heard of, but I didn't think spanish from murcia was another language than spanish in valencia. Every place, or even every person has his very particular way of speaking. Those are the small beautiful things that make life lovelier ;) Of course that's personal opinion, but I felt that in Valencia, Lleida and Barcelona people spoke the same language (call it as you want, it's just semantics), but with those obvious peculiarities due to geographical distance. --80.31.125.246 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note that the official Valencian Academy of Language has acknowledged that Valencian and Catalan are variants of the same language (link to a newspaper page in Spanish). --jofframes (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Valencian, and my mother tongue is Valencian. I considere that Valencian and Catalan are the same languages, but there are several dialects. It's like the Spanish in Andalucia, Argentina, Mexico... or the English in Scotland, England, Ireland, California, Australia, South Africa... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlesmari (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on scientific terms, we're talking about a language and it's dialects, not about feelings - points like "according to some people" are far from being scientific. According to 100% of the population on the middle ages the Sun turned around the Earth but it didn't make it any more true. If you can't use scientific truths, then keep your point for yourself. Sirstrahd (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an objective opinion. You can prove who developed it first, you can call it whatever you want (it seems pedantic and imperialist trying to call it just catalan), but the fact, and everybody knows, is that is practically the same thing. The actual problem is that this language does not own a proper appelative. It should have get a name like new-occità/provençà or east-mediterranian. I don't understand why politics and linguistics don't see where all conflicts... it's all really easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.58.131 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This book says Valencian is a dialect of Catlan: Introduccion a la linguistica espanola by Milton M. Azevedo (page 37). I feel like more citations are needed in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.145.235 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of native speakers

The infobox, citing Ethnologue, erroneously claims that the number of native speakers is 11.5 million. The figure (source) is the population of the regions where Catalan is spoken — which obviously doesn't equal the number of native speakers. ✎ HannesP · talk 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flags

What are they for? --John (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Valencian-centric theories

I have been reading the section "Valencian-centric theories". These theories have no scientific support and aren't taught in any university. They are made only for political reasons and have the same value in the academic world as theories proposing the origin of human beings coming from another planet. I propose that someone deletes totally this section. If you need references, you can go to any university library and try to find these theories. I assure you that you won't find them.--Toni PC (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Find the references first, then we'll see what must be deleted or not. By the way, you shouldn't have opened a new section, because this question is what has been discussed in the previous section. Jotamar (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's true that it had been discussed in the previous section, but I hadn't realized it because the title of the section didn't give me a clue.

I'd only like to add that this topic seems a bit of nonsense. I have studied Philology at the University of Valencia and know that there is a total academic consensus on the matter. Theories claiming for Valencian (first of all they should clarify what's the scope of Valencian)as a different language are supported by groups outside the universities which no one in the academic world consider, and this originated in the Spanish transition to democracy with political grounds. As I said, if there is an article on evolution and I write a section saying that I know theories which say that human beings descend from another planet, I expect that this section would be deleted, although these theories actually exist, but have no academic recognition. It would be stupid to ask for references that prove the lack of sense of these theories, because any universty student knows it. If we arrive to this nonsense to ask for references for everything that has a total consensus in the academic world, I think this is not the good way for the Wikipedia. Besides this, how can you find a reference that says that one theory is nonsense? --Toni PC (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I consider it totally inadequate that more than half of the Middle Ages section is occupied by this sub-section. I'll give you a reference that I found in a book at home: The book Història de la llengua catalana, by Antoni Ferrando and Miquel Nicolàs, wich was recommended to me by a professor of the Department of Catalan Philology of the University of Valencia, says (pages 422-423) that "it isn't necessary to insist on the philological discredit of secessionist ideas" and that the anticatalanist secessionism arose at the end of the 60s as a form to neutralize the left-wing opposition to the Franco regime. This is due to the fact that the left-wing forces were in favour of a recognition of the Catalan language, so saying that Valencian is not Catalan and inventing a different history of the language would help. This strategy was strengthened during the Spanish transition because the left-wing forces got a majority of votes in the region of Valencia. So this is the origin of these so called Valencian-centric theories. Not very academical nor neutral, of course.--Toni PC (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Editions by Temax

The last editions by user Temax do not look very neutral. I really don't know what to do about them. Any proposal? Jotamar (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They're also not very grammatical, so I'm not sure entirely what he's saying, but Temax seems to be summarizing some of the arguments of the Valencian language controversy. I haven't been able to verify the source as it's not online, either. If the source can be verified, then I guess a reduced version of that information can be kept in the article, but it's more appropriate to be under the Valencian languge heading than history. acomas (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've insulated Temax's editions under the heading Valencian-centric theories. They still don't look neutral, though. Jotamar (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With no further input in the last weeks (apart of a diatribe in my user talk page), I've decided to alter the section so that it sounds a bit more neutral. Jotamar (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevance for the section of the Flos Mundi quotation still remains a complete mystery to me. Jotamar (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been bold, and I've deleted the wole section. Reasons: It's clearly WP:NPOV. It's poorly sourced. I can't understand many sentences, and many of them sound (IMHO) almost childish. Besides, there's already an article about this: Valencian language controversy. Thanks.--Fauban 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to deleting, everybody is very bold. I've made some new changes, but I won't defend the original text, as it is of no use if the original editor doesn't come around and explains what exactly he meant. But you overlooked 2 very obvious points:

• In no place the original wording spoke about different languages. It just apoke about the origin of those languages. Apparently a lot of people give for granted the tree model.
• If Ubieto is not a scholarly support, then tell me what it is. Jotamar (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

V in Classical Latin

A user has been insisting that we use U instead of V in Classical Latin words on this page, but hasn't made their point consistently as they have left the V in 'levare'. Classical Latin had no letter U, so presumably if the intent is to accurately reflect the original spelling (which the all-caps seems to suggest) then there should not be any U in those words. I therefore have reverted the change but said user has pushed their point through instead, twice. CodeCat (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is nonsense to insist on "original spelling" because orthography was not consistent in practice. Spellings are usually normalised anyway in such cases, and that is actually current practice in Romance and Latin linguistics. "Original spelling" orthodoxy would mean that macrons could not be used, either, because they are completely alien to Latin orthographic practice, whether ancient, medieval or modern. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting the "Grammar" rection

Hi, I think the choices in that section are a bit arbitrary. I mean, why do we include this and not that? Since it's not sourced, I'm going to rewrite it from my Enciclopèdia Catalana article. I'm sure the choices will be more represenative. If somebody is interested in all the grammar aspects, he can check the Catalan Grammar article.

I'm including the original text before my changes:

The first descriptive and normative grammar book of modern Catalan was written by Pompeu Fabra in 1918. In 1995, a new grammar by Antoni Maria Badia i Margarit was published, which also documents the Valencian and Balearic varieties.

The grammar of Catalan follows the general pattern of Western Romance languages. The primary word order is SVO (subject–verb–object).

Substantives and adjectives are not declined by case, as in Classical Latin. There are two grammatical genders—masculine and feminine.

Grammatical articles developed from Latin demonstratives. The form of the article depends on the gender and the number of the subject and the first sounds of the word and can be combined with prepositions that precede them. A unique feature of Catalan is a definite article that may precede personal names in certain contexts. Its basic form is en and it can change according to its environment: en Joan meaning 'John', na Maria meaning 'Mary' (note clitic en has also other lexical meanings). One of the common usages of this article is in the word can, a combination of la casa shortened to ca ('house', as French chez) and en, which here means 'the'. For example la casa d'en Sergi becomes can Sergi meaning 'the house of Sergi', 'Sergi's house'. Note here, other definite articles (el, la, els, les) can also be used with personal names like in Portuguese, as la Maria ('Mary', Portuguese a Maria).

Verbs are conjugated according to tense and mood similarly to other Western Romance languages. Present, imperfect and simple preterite are based on classical Latin present, imperfect and perfect respectively, future and conditional are formed from the infinitive followed by the present and imperfect form of the auxiliary verb haver (written together and not considered periphrastic). Periphrastic tenses are formed from the conjugated auxiliary verbs haver ('to have') and ésser ('to be') followed by the past participle. A unique tense in Catalan is the "periphrastic simple preterite," which is formed of vaig, vas (or vares), va, vam (or vàrem), vau (or vàreu) and van (there is the usual wrong idea these forms are the conjugated forms of anar, which means 'to go'), which is followed by the infinitive of the verb. Thus, jo vaig parlar (or more simply vaig parlar) means 'I spoke'.

Nominative pronouns are often omitted, as the subject can be usually derived from the conjugated verb. The Catalan rules for combination of the object pronoun clitics with verbs, articles and other pronouns are significantly more complex than in most other Romance languages; see Weak pronouns in Catalan.

• The definite articles el, la, els, les derive from Latin demonstratives ille, illa. The older forms lo (m. s.) and los (m. pl.) are still common nowadays in some western dialects and in Algherese. Several varieties of the Catalan language (Balearic Islands, Costa Brava, and Tàrbena) have maintained an article called salat (< Latin ipse, ipsa → es, sa), probably formed before the variants of ille developed. Singular articles are elided before vowel-initial words, in speech and writing: el + home > l'home 'the man', la + hora > l'hora 'the time'.
• Possessive adjectives are formed with the definite article (el meu gos 'my dog') like in Italian (il mio cane), Portuguese (o meu cão) and in many Occitan dialects (Languedocien and Pyrenean Gascon). Weak forms of possessive adjectives (mon, ma, mos, mes, etc.) are fossilized for certain usages, as close familiar relatives or in order to express a high degree of affection (for instance: mon pare 'my dad', ma mare 'my mum'; in Valencian ma casa 'my home', ma vida 'my life'). Also note the postposition of the possessive to express particular nuances, e.g. casa meva ('my home', literally 'a house of mine') as different from la meva casa ('my house').
• Plurals are formed in a number of ways:
  • -a becomes -es (e.g. casa 'house' > cases).
  • Most consonant- and vowel-final words (except -a) add -s: noi 'boy' > nois, detall 'detail' > detalls
  • Words ending in sibilants (-s, -ç, -x, -ig) form plurals with -os: gos 'dog' > gossos, peix 'fish' > peixos. Some plural words with -ig may alternate forming plural by adding -os or a silent -s: raig 'ray' > rajos/raigs.
  • Words ending in sibilant clusters (-sc, -st, -xt) may form plurals by adding -os or -s: bosc 'forest' > boscos/boscs, aquest 'this' > aquestos/aquests.
  • Words ending in a stressed vowel often take -ns: pi 'pine' > pins, cinturó 'belt' > cinturons (but esquí 'ski' > esquís, tabú 'taboo' > tabús). In Western Catalan dialects, some particular words ending in unstressed vowels may also form plural by adding -ns: home 'man' > hòmens (from Latin homo > homines).
• Partitive: While Catalan patterns with Ibero-Romance in the lack of a partitive article (e.g. vull pa 'I want some bread', cf. Spanish quiero pan but French je veux du pain), it does have a partitive pronoun, like in Gallo-Romance languages: jo en tinc tres 'I have three of them' (Spanish tengo tres but French j'en ai trois).
• The construction used to express punctual/perfective aspect in the past tense is one of the most distinctive features of Catalan. It is a periphrasis formed with a special conjugation of anar ('to go'), that comes from the Latin verb vadere, plus the infinitive form of the main verb. For example: jo vaig dir ('I said'). This construction has almost completely replaced the historical simple past form (jo diguí), which corresponds to the Spanish preterit or French passé simple or Italian passato remoto.}}

Thanks--Fauban 12:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

unneeded classification

I added a reference, deleted by another edtitor, to prove that not all linguists classify Catalan (or any other language) in this or that way. It would be great to have a fine-grained and subtle explanation like that in Finnic languages#Subclassification, but we have no source for it, because linguistics in this part of the world is still dominated by old-fashioned ideas, and we just shouldn't let the reader get the impression that, if there are several different classifications, one must be right and the rest must be wrong. In other words, in an ideal world we wouldn't need my reference, but in the real world of Romance linguistics it is vital to state that languages needn't be classified, and that no classification can be perfect anyway. Opinions? Jotamar (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, just because some linguists think dialect continua cannot (or need not, which is even more specious to claim – who decides which scientific endeavours are "needed" and which aren't?) be classified in a tree-like fashion in principle does not make it true, as I tried to indicate with my abbreviated reference to Finnic, which you correctly interpreted. Tiit-Rein Viitso has presented a soundly argued tree-like classification of the Finnic dialects (as opposed to languages, which are not always valid genetic subgroups, perhaps are not even in most cases; Estonian in particular does not form a subgroup) in Abondolo, The Uralic languages, clearly disproving the claim of those Romanists who insist that dialect continua by their particular nature defy such attempts. Just like in biological taxonomy and cladistics, the general assumption is that classifications are not arbitrary, that there are correct and incorrect classifications, and that perfect classifications (or at least classifications that do not include invalid nodes) do exist (though they may not yet have been found, or may only be a theoretical possibility hampered by a lack of data in concrete cases). Secondly, as I have already explained, that point is irrelevant to this specific article anyway. You could add it to any article about a Romance language (if not any language), which would clearly be nonsensical. The remark is only relevant to articles such as Tree model, Dialect continuum, Subgrouping or Language family, not to articles about individual languages. By the way, I get conflicting messages out of your statement – you pretend that you are simply adding other linguists' opinion, but the way you state it (by treating an opinion of individual Romanists as if it were consensus among Romanists, and even as if it were undisputed fact in general, a holy truth, which it is by no means) it appears that this is your own POV that you are trying to push by inserting it (gratuitously, as I have explained) into the article about Catalan (and tellingly no other language). Raises several red flags about conflict of interest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I think you could be having a linguistic problem with the difference between need not and must not. I cannot tell for sure because English is not my native language, but neither is it yours. Second, I feel that you should elaborate more on what you mean by conflict of interest before further discussion. Jotamar (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer. Jotamar (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a linguistic problem with that difference, I know very well what I mean with what I have written. Please read it again. To repeat my central point: it would be patent nonsense to include such a remark in any article about a Romance language, let alone language in general, so why Catalan of all languages? This article is not the place to discuss the classification of Romance and individual scholars' opinions on the viability of the endeavour of classifying any particular language family. You seem to care very much for the topic, as a local, which would explain this strange obsession. I would advise you to adopt a different vantage point and get more distance. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason to include the comment here and not for other languages is because Catalan has been classified in different and seemingly contradictory ways. Now, are you saying that, in your opinion, all language varieties have one and only one correct way to be classified? Because I don't think that is a common belief any more among linguists. Jotamar (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Many languages have been classified in different and seemingly contradictory ways. (Part of the reason is disagreement about the importance or validity of criteria used for classification, but there is widespread agreement that morphological and phonological innovations, if chronologically synchronic, are suitable evidence for subgrouping). What makes Catalan so special?

So you are claiming that the opinion that language classification (or only subgrouping?) is an exercise in futility is prevalent or even (nearly) universal among (historical?) linguists in general? On which evidence is your belief based? I am aware of countless such disputes continuing to be pursued actively in contemporary academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Florian in part. Language classifications are usually a consistent and useful method. If one wants to comment on the validity of language classification theories, that should be done in the Language family or Romance languages articles.

Another thing is the different classification of Catalan according to different linguists. In my view, those views who adscribe it to Ibero-Romance are completelty flawed and based on politics. I mean, apart from geography (and only in part, because there's also Northern Catalonia; and the territories of Catalunya Vella are equally placed on both sides of the Pyrenees), what do they have? The conservative traits of Catalan when compared to Occitan and French cannot be said to be Spanish influence. Conservativism is not an "influence". I can't help thinking in those francoist authorities who called Catalan a "perverted dialect of Spanish" in the 1960s. Are we still using these fascist theories?

On the other hand, there is almost universal consensus that Catalan and Occitan are closely related. Any Catalan, without a linguistics degree, can see it. So the thing should be discussing this in articles such as Occitano-Romance languages, Gallo-Romance languages, or maybe a new article. Ennumerating the different innovations in Catalan and comparing them to other languages would be interesting. In my view, the question should be: Is Catalan Gallo-Romance? Or do Occitan and Catalan form a separate family different from the Oil branch?--Fauban 11:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that genetic language classifications were based on influences. Anyway, it seems that the tree model is still very popular among Wikipedia editors. If it were blindly applied to Romance languages, classifying Catalan as Gallo-Romance and not Ibero-Romance would imply that Catalan resembles more French than Spanish or Portuguese, which is not what I feel. The fact that Catalan resembles more Occitan than French or Spanish is obviously the result of the existence of a dialect continuum, not of any classification. What I mean is that the tree model, however applied, is highly dis-informative for the Romance languages, and even so I didn't intend to remove any text from the page, I just wanted to add a caveat for the unfortunate reader, with the Ralph Penny quote (have you read it?). It's sad that Wikipedia has this tendency to reflect established but outdated theories. Jotamar (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should expose your views somewhere else, as what you say applies to all Romance Languages. Please, consider creating a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Thanks.--Fauban 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article, it´s not so clear whether the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is a part of Spain or not.

So I restored Spain instead of "Iberian Peninsula". In the same sentence, France is cited as comprising some catalan-speaking areas; it is really confusing not even name here Spain when it´s actually the nation in which almost all historical catalan-speaking territories are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.6.32 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New "Catalan and Spanish cognates with different meanings" proposal

I propose "cama" ("leg" in Catalan; "bed" in Spanish). I'm not doing it myself because I don't know the Latin word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.206.58 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not known for sure if they're cognates. Catalan cama clearly comes from Latin gamba, but the origins of Spanish cama are more obscure.--Fauban 10:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping tables?

In the section Vocabulary:Lexical Comparison two table overlap and make understanding difficult. Is anyone in a position to fix this? 41.241.41.23 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and they don't overlap. What are you using?--Fauban 12:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any overlapping either, with MS IE 8. Incidentally, the 2 tables and the whole section look like a clear case of Cherry picking, and they blatantly try to prove how much more similar Catalan is to French and Italian than to Spanish. Jotamar (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking? blatantly? I still haven't seen a WP:RS saying the opposite.--Fauban 09:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have not read any source stating that the Wikipedia page on Catalan contains cherry-picking ??? Jotamar (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Intervocalic x

I'm not an expert in linguistics, but the following sentence in the article doesn't seem right:

"Intervocalic ⟨x⟩ and word-final ⟨ix⟩, it is /jʃ/."

I think there is a confusion between the letter ⟨x⟩ and the diagraph ⟨ix⟩. Intervocalic ⟨x⟩ is generally pronounced [ɡz] or [kz] and not /jʃ/, i.e. exemple, examen, luxe, laxa, òxid, and even fixar which is pronounced fiksá[ɾ] and never fiʃáɾ... and in all these cases the x is intervocalic.

The diagraph ⟨ix⟩ is the equivalent to the diagraph ⟨sh⟩ in English, but in Catalan it cannot be used at the beginning of a word. In other words, it is not necessarily that the x in caixa is pronounced /jʃ or /ʃ/ because it is intervocalic (any more than the s in "fashion" is pronounced /ʃ/ because it precedes an h), but rather it is the diagraph ⟨ix⟩ that represent a distinct phoneme.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 21:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a linguistic researcher, though I don't know Catalan. It seems to me from the descriptions of the digraphs* ig and ix that the i represents a vowel only when the digraph immediately follows a consonant; when the digraph follows a vowel, the i is silent. Is this correct?

In any case, if ix is a digraph for /ʃ/, it should be mentioned as such along with the others.

*BTW, it's digraph, not "diagraph".

Thnidu (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vowel + "ix" is pronounced vowel + /jʃ/ in Western Cat; vowel + /ʃ/ is impossible in those dialects. On the other hand, Vowel + "ix" is pronounced vowel + /ʃ/ in Western Cat; that's because of the historical phonetic shift /jʃ/>/ʃ/. Consonant + "ix" is unpredictable. fixar is /fiksà/~/fiksàɾ/, while mixo is /míʃu/~/míʃo/.--Fauban 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

<x> is usually /ʃ/ word-initially. See [5]. CodeCat (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)