Talk:Maltese language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit warring flagged by the 3RRBot

Please see this report of a possible 3RR violation by User:Mingeyqla. All editors are reminded to observe the WP:3RR policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Column on the Table

I'm reverting the deletion of the Libyan Arabic column from the comparison table for one simple reason: We need to discuss it (calmly) on this page before just removing interesting and potentially enlightening information. It's not like we're removing incorrect assertions or wrong-headed discussion. This is just simple data that can be very useful for comparison purposes. Unlike wrong assertions of Maltese' alleged "mixed language" or "creole" origins, this is relevant data (which takes pride of place over prose any day). (I think it would be even more interesting to see a column with Egyptian or Syrian Arabic for comparison as well.) If this column shows that Maltese does, indeed, have a closer affinity to Maghrebi than to other varieties of Arabic, then what's the harm? If this column doesn't show that Maltese has a closer affinity to Maghrebi than to other varieties of Arabic, then what's the harm? Before reverting someone else's well-intentioned hard work, it should be discussed some first. (Taivo (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Once again the article falls prey to foibles and inconsistencies. I agree that it is interesting in the abstract but contributes little of real worth, especially since any decent linguist would recognise that simply appearing to lend 'closer affinity' hardly constitutes a true and provable relationship. I repeat, if such information is to be included even in the context of a comparison table, it must be referenced by scholarly works of merit and not simple opinions. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the forms on the table, I think that the Libyan Arabic column is extremely helpful in showing how close Siculo-Arabic and Maltese are. If nothing else, it demonstrates that Maltese is, indeed, incontrovertibly descended from Siculo-Arabic and not directly from Maghrebi Arabic. Any Maghrebi ancestry is more distant than Siculo-Arabic. That is crystal clear from a comparison of the columns and seeing the very, very similar forms between Maltese and Siculo-Arabic and the clearly related, but not-so-similar forms between Maltese and Libyan Arabic. If you want referencing for the Libyan Arabic column, then we must also require referencing for the Siculo-Arabic and Maltese columns as well. (Taivo (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Re all round referencing; there's nothing wrong with being scrupulous! the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think adding a Tunisian Arabic column would be the most enlightening, since it is said to bear the closest resemblance to Maltese among the still-existing Maghribi Dialects. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this: it is interesting to note that Maltese settlers in Tunisia did not succumb to the convention of their new home, but maintained the Maltese language. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so for an article on Mandarin we should now include all other Sino-Tibetan translations? We use Siculo-Arabic to compare with Maltese. Comparison of Siculo-Arabic with other Arabic varieties goes on the Siculo-Arabic page. I am thus removing it. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only editor here, Mingeyqla. We're discussing this first before deleting the column. Your opinion is only one of many. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

As neither are you. No, that is not the way things work here; discussion is made in order to modify a previous consensus-built page. You must therefore do this before adding the column. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your rev Mingeyqla. The discussion is still going on, plus the new column in the table doesn't introduce any controvertial or incorrect content to the article. On the contrary it shows the close relation Maltese has with the Maghrebi Arabic division. Plus that even the Maltese Wikipedia says that the Maltese Language is meħud minn djalett Għarbi ta' l-Afrika ta' Fuq (is taken from the dialect of Arabic of North Africa). But oh, I shouldn't have said that cuz you're gonna run and change that too. I'll be watching the Malese wikipedia page too, mind you. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, no, you must first gain consensus for this change - it clearly is controversial since 50% of the current discussers already oppose it. By all means put it on the Siculo-Arabic page, but it is not going here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're alone, Mingeyqla, in your opinion. Even Pietru agrees that the issue of deleting the column should be discussed before it is decided. DISCUSS the issue here. You have simply made assertions without logical reasons or reasons relating to the actual content. WHY do you object to the content here? And "it should go somewhere else" is not a logical, reasoned discussion. And your analogy with Mandarin is false. A comparison of Mandarin with Wu or Yue is more appropriate, just as a comparison between Maltese, Siculo-Arabic, and Maghribi is appropriate here. The chart shows very strongly how closely Maltese is tied to Siculo-Arabic and that it is less strongly tied to Maghrebi, but tied nonetheless. (Taivo (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Certainly not. Pietru agrees that the content should not be here, and that you should discuss its addition - hence the very fact he reverted. Be careful Taivo, you're coming close to breaking the rules.

I object to the content because:

• It is completely irrelevant - we do not include all translations of all Sino-Tibetan languages for an article on Mandarin.
• It is nothing more than a pro-Libyan POV push - check the user it came from!
• It is controversial, and thus you must raise consensus for it here first - which you're not going to get anyway.
• Take it to Siculo-Arabic by all means, where I would in fact say it is needed, as vocabulary should be compared/contrasted with relevant languages. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, you didn't read the private conversation that I was having with Pietru wherein he agreed that we should discuss the deletion with more than just two editors. He disagrees with the addition of the column, but he agrees that we should discuss it before removing it with more editors. And be careful who you are accusing of breaking 3RR. You should count your own reversions first.

• The content is not irrelevant. The issue is the relationship of Maltese to the other Arabic varieties. Including a closely-related variety is totally relevant. I actually think that adding a fourth, more distant, Arabic variety would make the chart even more relevant since it would show how close Maltese is to Siculo-Arabic, a close Maghribi, and to a more distant Mashriqi variety. Relevance is seeing how tied into Arabic Maltese really is and not something "completely different" as the "mixed language/creole" crowd would have us believe. Your example of Mandarin is hardly relevant unless you said, "include Yue and Wu comparisons". Since Yue and Wu are closely related Chinese languages, that would, indeed, be relevant to show how Mandarin fits into the Chinese language complex. If we were trying to put Hausa or Somali cognates in the Maltese table, then your Mandarin/Sino-Tibetan analogy would be correct. But we're talking about closely related varieties that until recently were dialects of the same language.
• No. It's not "pro-Libyan". Actually the "user" you commented on said that Tunisian Arabic would be an even better variety to use. And before you accuse others of highly POV editing, perhaps you should examine your own history of trying to separate Maltese from its Arabic roots.
• It's not "controversial". It's not a prose POV, it's just data. And data from another closely related variety of Arabic is completely relevant to an understanding of how Maltese fits within the Arabic language world.
• It should also be on the Siculo-Arabic page, for sure, but it's not irrelevant here since the discussion of where Maltese came from is 100% relevant for a page on Maltese.

We should wait for other interested editors to weigh in here. You have certainly been vocal here, but Pietru agreed with me that we won't make a final decision on inclusion or not until more have commented. Thank you for your input, Mingeyqla, now let others talk as well. (Taivo (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Haha, I already read the discussion on your talk page, and that is what helped back up my previous thoughts anyway. Not Pro-Libyan? Look at the user's contributions, page, and talk history. Your last points would be relevant Taivo, if it were on the Siculo-Arabic page. I know I am at the limit of my reverting for today - which is why I have stopped for this time period - do you really think I'd point out a rule to you which I intend to break myself? Oh you're certainly welcome for my input - I'll always be here to give it, don't worry. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Libyan user added a Libyan Arabic column because he is most familiar with Libyan Arabic. And if you're actually reading the posts you would've read by now what I had said about how Tunisian Arabic would make for a better addition so I am not pushing my national baggage here. On the other hand it is obvious to everybody that you're the one who is pushing the nationally-fueled distance-Maltese-from-Arabic cause. I have nothing with that if it helps you better with your national identity. But, please don't bring it over to the Sciences. And it is impolite to threaten other editors with the 3RR rule. We should be discussing not threatenning each other. Behave!.Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Your Pro-pan-arab nationalism can be easily seen from your user history. And please name one instance during this where I have even proposed that Maltese is not Arabic? Oh look, you can't. ;) mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the critical point of the conversation between me and Pietru:

• I've reverted your deletion for now so that more than just you and I can discuss this. It should be discussed on the Maltese Language Talk page. Let a few more editors put in their opinions first. (Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
• Certainly; best way to move forward...(the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

It was a cordial and polite conversation and I appreciate his input and well-mannered discussions. (Taivo (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

What about my user history, Mingeyqla?. I am an Arab. I am most familiar and interested in Arab issues. It is just natural. But do check the edits themselves to see if there is bias in what I contrib'd.Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see we're mostly keeping cool heads over this. As previously stated, I agree that the more opinions we have the more likely a suitable solution, strengthening the article, will be achieved. Personally, I would rather see no inclusion and leave it as a Maltese/Siculo-Arabic side by side comparison. If we agree that the Libyan stuff is to remain, it should be contrasted with other dialectical variations, giving a fullness of understanding to the Maltese language and not as a sticking point for any 'Arabic nationalism' (lol!). Either way, we seem to be moving forward. Slowly. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic translations are completely irrelevant here, and their inclusion is certainly notable of a push of a key agenda. 78.149.236.151 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording in the introduction to the table (which was not well constructed in its original form) to make clear what Libyan Arabic was really illustrating in the table. Perhaps now it is clear that there is no "Maghribi" agenda here. (Taivo (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The more this situation unfolds, the less clear that seems. The changes are still far from favoured. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree that we haven't agreed yet, but whether the column stays or goes, the intro was badly written and needed rewriting. If the column goes, then the intro can be tweaked again. But it was inaccurate as previously written with or without the column. (Taivo (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

And back to the table... Several of us have requested another column with a more distant variety of Arabic represented. Can anyone add that so that we can see how it would look? (Taivo (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm also concerned about the claims of an "agenda". What agenda? That Maltese is Arabic? Guess what? It is. The only question is how close is it to the other varieties. The table clearly shows its origins in Siculo-Arabic and its slightly more distant relationship with Libyan Arabic. We really want to see another non-Maghribi variety of Arabic listed as well. That would help a lot to illustrate the place of Maltese within the Arabic complex. (Taivo (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Like stated above, the changes do not solve the real problem here, it is completely undue and as a result, no matter what form it takes, is a non-neutral point of view. As stated above by at least two or three editors, the Sicilian Arabic page is the place to be having the discussion for the content to be listed there. 78.149.236.151 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My underlying question still stands. Why is this so apparently offensive? Why does it support a POV? Some of you are claiming that it is POV, but why? What is POV about it? When people come to the Maltese page, one of the questions they will have is "What is the origin of Maltese?" As such, they don't necessarily want to go searching for information on another page. They want that information here. No one is going to go to the Siculo-Arabic page first (and probably not even second). (OK, some people will go there, but the majority won't.) When I look at articles on Maltese in the scientific literature, they don't even mention Siculo-Arabic, they show Maltese in a chart along with other Arabic varieties. In the Kaye and Rosenhouse chapter on "Arabic dialects and Maltese" in The Semitic Languages, we find such lists as the following under the label "seven Arabic dialects" (the morphology tables are labelled such): Cairene, Damascene, Iraqi, Negev bedouin, Yemenite, Moroccan, Maltese. We find a comparison of glosses with: Nigerian, Cairene, Damascene, Iraqi, Meccan, Maltese, Lebanese, Anatolian, Israeli, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan. And in the charts listing reflexes of Classical Arabic k and q we find: Jugari, Muslim Baghdad, Jewish Baghdad, Mosul, 'Aanah, Rural Lower Iraq, Judeo-Arabic Iraqi Kurdistan, Mardin, sheep nomads, camel nomads, Aleppo, Damascus, Beirut, Horan, Druze, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Biir Zeet, Yemen, Cairo, Sudan, Ouaday, East Libyan, Tunis, Marazig, Judeo-Algiers, Bou Saada, Djidjelli, Casablanca, Maltese, Andalusian. So this reputable source quite regularly lists Maltese along with other Arabic forms without mention of Siculo-Arabic. So let's stop trying to eliminate mention of other Arabic in this article. It's not an "agenda", it's a fact that Maltese is Arabic. It is no longer mutually intelligible with other Arabic varieties, so it is, indeed, a separate language. But it is plainly and unequivocally part of the Arabic complex. So precisely what POV does this column push? (Taivo (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I never mentioned 'agenda' except to laugh at: Taivo, we know Maltese is descended from Siculo-Arabic. You are teaching nothing and in your constant repetition I wonder, do you have anything new to contribute? I hope so. Also, just as we agreed to discuss changes before editing, I would suggest you extend this same courtesy you seem to expect.

More generally however, once again, the fact that nobody of sufficient skill or education has come forward to really get to grips with these issues, as relating to the Maltese language, leaves the edits lacking. This article does not benefit from coddling or tinkering. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, I added a column for Syrian Arabic. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I, petulant and tired, removed it. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But you also removed the Libyan Arabic column under discussion. So, I am revving you. Chill Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing is under discussion, not one or the other of your edits. And it's still January. I'm still chillin'. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave the current columns alone until we've had a thorough discussion which hasn't been done yet. There are still a couple more people who have been involved in the past who haven't weighed in yet, kwami, for example. Thanks for adding the Syrian so that we can see exactly what a better chart would look like. I still haven't heard a single word about WHY the added columns are POV. Please clarify exactly what is offensive about them. There isn't a rush to remove these columns today or even tomorrow. Let's get some real discussion here. Please tell me why they are POV. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I never suggested they were: I object to their inclusion on the grounds of irrelevance. They should appear on the Siculo-Arabic article, not the Maltese one. I also find the way they are being insinuated under the pretence of 'further discussion' utterly distasteful. I shall wait for others to comment; obviously there is no resolution if this is the general mood. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no "general mood". I find the columns quite relevant to a discussion of Maltese's history. (Taivo (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I do not. The table demonstrates Maltese' relationship with its ancestor, Siculo-Arabic, not further relationships with Arabic dialects the Maltese language was isolated from. It is interesting and deserves to be featured, but certainly not as proposed. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Maltese is a variety of Arabic. So what is irrelevant about showing not only its relationship to Siculo-Arabic, but to other varieties of Arabic? If you don't like this table's placement or its introductory paragraph, then move it. But the history and relationships of Maltese are 100% relevant to an article on Maltese. (Taivo (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

So now, both myself and Pietru have reverted you multiple times, while an IP has also commented of his dissaproval (although not reverted), and you are still arguing. The consensus against you is continuing to grow. I am sick of you not listening. Whether it is interesting for yourself or not is completely irrelevant. The collumns are not going to be added until you somehow (although now extremely unlikely) show a consensus for them. There indeed is a rush, as Wikipedia is not run by laisez-faire eventualist philosophies - fine attention must be given immediately to problems - on an unrelated, but parralel anecdote, even Jimbo once commented that unsourced information is never to remain in hope that it may eventually be sourced and that it should be deleted rather than tagged with a "cite" tag. In this case, the issue is not over unsourced content - I'm sure the translations are very much correct - the problem is that being undue, they establish a POV into the article.mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure this new column thing will go through, regardless. Luckily, I feel myself beyond caring. Nearly, anyway. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Mingeyqla, I ask you as I have asked others--What specifically is the POV that these added columns espouse? "Consensus" is not a three to two vote. It is continuing a discussion until an meeting of the minds is reached. I have still not heard a single justification as to why this extra information is "POV". (And discussion does not consist of reverting until the other person is tired.) (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes discussion does not involve reverting until the other person is tired - and thus, I am reverting you. As mentioned many times now, undue information stresses something irrelevant, which is therefore a POV push. Let's use an example (you're not listening to anything else)-

If I started including all Romance language translations, that would be overstressing the importance of this, thus constituting a POV. You are doing the same, but in reverse - with Arabic. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart I added was not relevant for Siculo-Arabic since it shows MALTESE cognates. Siculo-Arabic is extremely limited in its recorded lexicon, so the Arabic relationship of Maltese must be shown through cognates, not through direct Siculo-Arabic attestation. Why are you so dead set against showing the Maltese relationship to Arabic? (Taivo (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

You are now reverting simply to be hostile. The information is relevant and sourced. It is not POV. What is the problem with it? (Taivo (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you don't even know how to spell the Maltese words properly. Just sayin' the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about. The section is about Vocabulary. Therefore, including reference to all historical Arabic dialectial translations is the same as including a translation to Romanian - a language with a common ancester with Italian. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem (and indeed considerable benefit) in including this information. Adding illustrative cognates from languages with various degrees of kinship is standard good practice in academic texts, and even fairly common in our language articles. It is a very efficient method of displaying the evolution of relationships in the lexicons of languages. See the tables in our articles on Albanian, Spanish, Hungarian and Bulgarian. There has been no need (perceived or otherwise) to include every Romance language at the Spanish article, nor any claims that the entries at Hungarian have been a "pro-Baltic POV push", in analogy with the claim of "pro-Libyan POV push" above. Such claims are entirely specious here.

As many of the arguments against inclusion are focusing on editors and not content, it is worth a short reminder that you should be commenting on the latter - especially when the comments on the former have been largely unfounded, and should be either rigorously justified or removed as unfounded.

I do of course agree that the added content should be sourced as quickly as possible - in this case, finding sources should not be especially difficult. Perhaps a collaboration on finding suitable sources and exemplars would be a more useful way of continuing this as yet unprofitable discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Knepflerle, your above comments do not imply why including Tunisian + other Arabic variety translations in a section on Maltese vocabulary is any different to providing all Romance language translations. The section would of course be welcome at Siculo-Arabic, but not here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly including examples from two Arabic dialects is not equivalent to adding examples from all Romance languages. Including pertinent examples from couple of Arabic languages and a couple of Romance languages would be equivalent, and useful. Look at the table at the Albanian language article I linked to above - see how examples from languages from multiple families are used to show how the lexicon has been influenced from more than one source over time. Knepflerle (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Knepflerle, for your constructive comments. I had built a compromise table that was sourced (Kaye & Rosenhouse 1997, pg. 268-271), but Mingeyqla has been reverting it without any discussion. If I revert his deletion again it will be in violation of 3RR. But it was a good table I thought. Although no one had the chance to see it and comment upon it because Mingeyqla simply reverted without reading it, commenting upon it, or allowing others to consider it. The compromise table eliminated the need for the contentious Libyan and Syrian Arabic columns along with Siculo-Arabic and Maltese, but still showed the level of cognacy between Maltese forms and other forms in Arabic. And Pietru, I copied the Maltese forms exactly as they were in the source. (Taivo (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Really? Odd. 'Kelb' is certainly not spelt 'kelp' (though it's pronounced that way). Maybe the legitimacy of the source is questionable? Anyway, I have nothing against actually reviewing your contribution. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is accurate (it's by one of the foremost scholars on Arabic and Arabic dialects), but the entries are spelled phonetically rather than with the orthographies of the varieties involved. Indeed, Negev bedouin can hardly be said to have a "spelling system". Sadly, Mingeyqla thinks that including any Arabic in this article is unjustified so the chart is gone again without him justifying it. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, how many times do I have to say this? Including it is WP:UNDUE in a section on vocabulary on the Maltese language page, and is the same as including Spanish and Portuguese translations in the "Romance vocabulary" section. If you want it included, take it to Varieties of Arabic or Siculo-Arabic. I am not going to repeat myself any more. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not undue since it shows examples of cognate vocabulary and firmly places Maltese within the Arabic world. People can see the similarities and differences. Since there are not a great number of Siculo-Arabic recordings, it is imperative for historical linguists to weigh Arabic cognates with Maltese. It cannot be done through the medium of Siculo-Arabic alone. Look at the Maltese Etymological Dictionaries and you will see that the majority of Arabic entries have no Siculo-Arabic forms recorded. Maltese was found to be an Arabic variety long before Siculo-Arabic was described in the linguistic literature. A full chart of Romance is not relevant because Maltese is not genetically related to Romance, it just has Romance loanwords. See Knepflerle's comments above on comparable tables in other language articles. A chart of Germanic cognates at English language which included Gothic, Old Norse, Swedish, and Dutch would be totally appropriate. A chart of Romance loanwords which included Romanian cognates for words we borrowed from French would be totally inappropriate. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The section is not on genetic relation - there is another section for that. The sections is on vocabulary, of which Romance is certainly a prominent feature - in fact more prominent than Arabic. Therefore, including French and Spanish translations is directly comparable to this situation. No one is stopping you depositing your "table" where it at least fits (although massive cleanup will be needed) - which is not here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart is letter for letter from the cited source, where the forms are transcribed phonetically. To "clean up" the chart would be WP:OR I should think. Yes, indeed, the section is on vocabulary, that's why it is a vocabulary chart and not a chart showing grammar. The inherited Maltese lexicon is from Arabic sources so a chart of cognates is totally relevant. If Maltese borrowed French and Spanish words directly then they should be included, of course. But if it did not, they are irrelevant to a discussion of Maltese. Arabic cognates are relevant and directly borrowed words are relevant. (Taivo (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

You've just fallen over yourself ;) "If Maltese borrowed French and Spanish words directly then they should be included" - Maltese didn't borrow Tunisian Arabic words directly. game over. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That comment makes it very clear that you don't know the difference between a borrowed word and a cognate. You should read an introductory historical linguistics text before you make such statements. A borrowed word is a word that is taken from another language and adopted as part of the language. As such, Maltese has borrowed words from English, Italian, Spanish, etc. A cognate is a word that is found in a sister language that derives from an ancestral word in the common ancestor. As such, the word for dog in Maltese is cognate with the word for dog in Egyptian Arabic. A table of cognates (words in sister languages that derive from a common ancestral form) is totally relevant and is found on the pages of many, many languages in Wikipedia (that's what I added in). A table of borrowed words is relevant and is found on the pages of many, many languages in Wikipedia. What's your problem? I added a table of cognates in the Arabic language complex that featured words with a Maltese reflex. There is already a table of borrowed words in Maltese. What would be inappropriate would be a table of borrowed words that included, say, a French cognate of a borrowed Italian word. Maltese borrowed the Italian word, not the French one. You really need to learn the difference between borrowed words and cognates. They are apples and oranges. (Taivo (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Oh dear you're still going on. A cognate does not neccessarily have to be in the same language family - it simply has to have the same word (/word derivation) in it. For instance, "theatre" in English is a cognate of théatre in French, yet English is a Germanic language. It seems it is you therefore who does not understand the meaning. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO. The definition of cognate REQUIRES that the reflexes are in the same language family. Read any introductory historical linguistics text. Theater and théatre are not cognates. English theater is borrowed from French, it is NOT a cognate. English do and French faire are cognates. Proto-Indo-European *dhak > Proto-Germanic *dax > English do; PIE *dhak > Latin facere > French faire. Cognates are forms in sister languages that have derived from the common ancestor form through the application of regular sound changes in each of the daughters. That is the problem with your comments--you don't know the difference between the words cognate and borrowing. Other cognates between English and French include foot/pied, heart/coeur, young/jeune, etc. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The table Taivo provides is a succinct and sourced demonstration of the cognates still visible between Maltese and Arabic dialects; I am in favour of its inclusion, with a small footnote explaining that the spelling used is a phonetic transcription different to standard Maltese orthography. If a suitable table can be reliably sourced comparing cognates between Maltese's Italianate lexicon and Romance languages, that would also be worthy of inclusion. Knepflerle (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Knepflerle is at least being reasonable - either both cognate tables are included, or neither are. Taivo on the other hand, I'd advise reading Cognate. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing - I'd ask you not please not rephrase my words, especially incorrectly. Taivo's table is worthy of inclusion - if an equivalent second table can be found that would also be worthy of inclusion, but Taivo's can stand alone until then. I said if, not if and only if. Knepflerle (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination are English theater and French theatre cognates. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I will revert and readd the cognate table based on your agreement with Knepflerle. Go ahead and construct what you would like to include for borrowed words. And I did read cognate. It says exactly what I said. (Taivo (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The table is very informative. I am in favor. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A revised 'cognate table' is certainly more favourable than the previous suggestion (intruding on the side-by-side Maltese/Siculo-Arabic comparison). the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the User:mɪn'dʒi:klə account has been deleted for sockpuppetry. kwami (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to attract sockpuppets. Mingeyqla and mɪn'dʒi:klə--coincidence? (Taivo (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Page protected

In light of the edit war and the 3RR reports, I have protected the page for 5 days and encourage ongoing discussion below. If this fails to find a resolution, please do not revert on the article page, as this will lead to blocks. Instead, we have many avenues for dispute resolution which should be invoked (i.e. WP:RfC or informal/formal mediation). -- Samir 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I find the article changes (pending minor modifications) agreeable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is acceptable. Pietru's minor modifications are quite often acceptable. (Taivo (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Thank you; I hope to be so complimentary of your work. Although in this instance, I'm glad a compromise was reached. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave the table alone

Pietru, stop putting the phonetic footnote next to Maltese in the cognate table. ALL the forms are phonetic recordings and are NOT transliterations from Arabic script. I have written this exactly as in the source. Stop reverting. (Taivo (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

The note says 'all'. I don't see why you're being hostile to the idea of placing the footnote where it would do the most good. And the page being protected, if it's over this, is simply ridiculous. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The note does not "do the most good" next to "Maltese" when it affects all the Arabic columns as well. The note next to "Maltese" implies that it only affects Maltese. (Taivo (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Maltese is written in the Latin alphabet and no other and, as I said, benefits from specific disambiguation. The content of the footnote also makes clear that ALL other columns are phonetically rendered. Seems simple enough but because you're not getting it, I shan't push. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it quite well--you want special treatment for Maltese in the table. None of the languages in the table are transcribed or transliterated from their writing systems so Arabic speakers were telling me of the problem as well. The note is equally for them as for Maltese speakers. Doesn't matter whether the alphabet in question is Latin or Arabic--all users of the table were mentioning the issue. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Special treatment for Maltese in an article about the Maltese language? Heaven forfend! את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, will someone please deal with Pietru. He's causing trouble all over the place. At Maltese people he kept trying to add in odd anti-Arabic and anti-Libyan POVs that I spent hours trying to get back out, telling him on his talk page, through edit summaries, and on the article talk page, to discuss his changes, but he refused to, removed the comments on his talk page, and called me a vandal. I asked User:Angr to do something about it, and he protected the page (be it so on Pietru's version, since I stopped reverting). Can someone please leave some comments on the talk page. 89.242.104.217 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I expect a full apology from this persistently lying anon. None of my edits were anti-"Arabic" nor anti-Libyan. I also suggest the IPs identity be somehow ascertained before it continues to damage articles. Comments (on Talk:Maltese people or elsewhere) are certainly welcome. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You won't get an apology from an anonymous IP. They are tough to deal with. I've had the most success in getting particular pages semi-protected when the IPs are troublesome on that page and their edits are systematically in support of a particular, clear POV. There's no general prohibition against anonymous IPs. Some anonymous IPs are very good editors. (Taivo (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

exceptio probat regulam Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Word order (noun - adjective)

The section on Adjectives & Adverbs states "As in Italian and other Romance languages, adjectives follow nouns.", but fails to mention that this is the same word order as in Arabic and probably most of Semitic.

Although it does not explicitly say so, it seems to imply that the origin of the word order were the Romance languages. --Schuetzm (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

A linguist neither side can claim is short of knowledge on the matter, states that Maltese is a Semitic language "at the same time" as being an "authentic" mixed language. Now will all of you stop bickering all the time about it - you were both right, yet both wrong. 78.146.227.40 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Since he doesn't understand what a mixed language is, I'd say is he short of knowledge on the matter. kwami (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking. Do you know who he is? 78.149.185.135 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, perhaps I was a bit harsh. But he doesn't know what a mixed language is. First of all, he says that Maltese is Semitic. If it were mixed, it would not be possible to assign it to a single language family. Secondly, he says that the Italian influence on Maltese is comparable to the French influence on English. That's what we've all been saying: Maltese has a mixed vocabulary, but if you count that as a mixed language, then English and a lot of other languages are mixed too. No-one considers English, Romanian, Japanese, Persian, Thai, Swahili, etc. etc. to be mixed languages just because they have massive amounts of loan words. kwami (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't say it is the same as the Anglo-French example though, he just compares them. After all, the Middle English creole hypothesis leaves something in the wake of this anyway. Also, it is possible for Maltese to be Semitic at the same time as mixed, in that its base (and therefore genetics) was Semitic, but absorbed substantial lexical changes to qualify it as mixed too. 78.149.185.135 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This paper again? Good grief. This old chestnut has been thoroughly discussed several times before, both above and elsewhere. It's a single publication with seemingly little support or citation from mainstream academic publications. I asked a series of questions above which went completely unanswered:

Exactly what information do we have on Badia and his work?

Do we know if this article was even peer-reviewed?

How widely is it cited?

Ultimately, is this single view notable enough to make up a substantial part of our coverage on the matter?

Until those are answered, the fact that it's used as a source in our article five times(!) is probably at least four times more than it should be per WP:UNDUE. One swallow doth not linguistic canon make. Knepflerle (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Badia is a qualified linguist who is not only cross-referenced by others in the field such as Brincat and Grixti, but our own community on Wikipedia has commented on its acceptance before; User:Ayla to name but one. A google search reveals his works are far spread, and he has published several books as well as reviewed documents on European languages. In the document in question, he cites a variety of other authors. Cheers 78.149.185.135 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kwami is absolutely right. We've discussed this before ad nauseum right here. Maltese is, plain and simple, not a mixed language in the technical sense of the word. Maltese has a vocabulary with actually less Romance vocabulary than English has. English is definitely not a mixed language, so Maltese cannot be either. I have read the Badia article more times than it deserves and his "mixed language" comment is actually one brief throw-away comment in the middle of talking about something else. He presents absolutely no evidence on the subject and is just making "small talk" in the context of the article. That is not science and it is not a reliable source. Drop it. (Taivo (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Sorry but where exactly did you get the idea that you decided what was a reliable source or not? It in fact meets the criteria for WP:RS (as far as Wikipedia has criteria on the matter, there being no official policy to which sites are includable, of course). 78.149.185.135 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "cross-referenced by others in the field such as Brincat and Grixti" - unfortunately, other than the citation from his institution colleague Grixti I can't find a single one of these other citations. Could you point them out please?
• "Badia is a qualified linguist" - you've got more information than me again; I couldn't find any details on his qualification. What university did this work come from? Was this part of a doctoral work? I might be able to look up the thesis if so. Has he had any academic positions? I couldn't find any evidence of any, maybe you know more?
• "our own community on Wikipedia has commented on its acceptance before; User:Ayla to name but one" - can you name the others, because the editing community of this article right here, right now apart from you disagrees with its inclusion.
• "his works are far spread" - I couldn't find a single paper in any mainstream linguistics journal. Perhaps you could point us to some? Or one?
• Do you know if this article was ever peer-reviewed whatsoever? Knepflerle (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are good questions, Knep, and go right to the point. As far as my qualifications go, I am a professional historical linguist and teach linguistics at a Carnegie I Research institution in the United States. You can find me listed in the English Department at Utah State University if you want to check it out. That's what qualifies me to judge the quality of Badia's statement about "mixed language". And as kwami noted, you cannot have a language that is both a solidly Semitic language and a mixed language at the same time. It just proves that Badia is not using linguistic terminology accurately or with any care. Apparently Badia is not affiliated with any university as far as Knep could determine and has no PhD in the field as far as Knep could determine. Once again, the comment about "mixed language" is a throwaway line in the cited web article and he presents not one drop of evidence for it. Not a single sentence is devoted to proving that Maltese is a "mixed language". Zero. The article may be a reliable source for other aspects of his discussion, but it is not for the comment about "mixed language". It simply shows that he doesn't know what a mixed language really is. (Taivo (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I just reread our anonymous IP's first couple of posts. Our anon doesn't know what a mixed language is either. Mixed languages are where the grammars of two languages are mixed, not just where one language has borrowed a lot of words. Michif, for example, uses Cree verbal morphology with French nominal morphology. Just adding a lot of loanwords doesn't make a language mixed. The Middle English creole hypothesis is also generally rejected by specialists and there is a higher percentage of loanwords in English than there is in Maltese. I must now wonder whether our anonymous IP is just another in a long string of sock puppets that have plagued this discussion. (Taivo (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Right, to start off with, your qualifications have nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you published a source on the matter, it was peer-reviewed, and cited, then yes, your opinion would count - but until such a time, you are in just the same position as every other editor, I'm afraid. I have qualifications in the history of European languages (and a minor in Indo-European languages), yet you do not see me claiming that this puts me in a position to assume authority of the article - even when my qualifications are in fact much more aligned to this particular case, with Malta, the last time I checked, being of course a European nation.

Secondly, please do not assume what I do and do not know. I indeed understand what a mixed language is - let's look at it step by step:

• A mixed language is formed when the population is fluent in both constituting languages - in this case, Siculo-Arabic, and Sicilian. Interestingly, the case in Malta also experienced diglossia.
• A mixed language, unlike a pidgin/creole, does not have a simplified structure - and Maltese certainly inherited both complexities of its parents, adding the tri-part Semitic building block system to the inflections and conjugation system of the Romance languages.

Where I stated that it can be Semitic too, I simply meant (as presumeably did Badia) that its original genetic base was Semitic, before Sicilian (re)arrived to intermix with it. For example, Michif can be argued to be initially genetically Cree, and only afterwards supplanted by French, to render it "mixed". So therefore, do not assume that myself or Badia are "not using linguistic terminology accurately or with any care".

Also, I am seriously shocked by your now lack of assumption of good faith, above all else. If this is how you intend to continue, then mind me while I discuss this with the other editors here who do not think of themselves as above the others, and can actually conduct themselves civilly in a conversation (Knepflerle and Kwamikagami seem perfectly able to). 78.149.222.247 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were true that Maltese had "the inflections and conjugation system of the Romance languages" as a productive part of its grammar, then yes, I would accept it as a mixed language. But it doesn't. It has merely inherited Romance plurals in borrowed words. That's like claiming that English has Semitic triliteral roots because it has the words salaam, islam, and muslim.

And I notice that you haven't actually answered any of the questions, but continue to dodge them. I'm outa here. kwami (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You claim I'm not answering the questions? I haven't even replied to Knepflerle yet, so it's not like I'm wriggling my way out of them - I'm waiting for an email back from Badia.

Also, Badia aside (although his response will highlight which university/organization etc he is affiliated with); he is certainly not alone in what he says. Aquilina, an author referenced all over Wikipedia, in fact wrote extensively on "Maltese as a mixed language". Also, Mike Rosner, affiliated with the University of Malta is one of the many others who hold this position. 78.149.222.247 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in 1958. In the half century since then, scholars working on mixed languages have not picked up on it. When people are forced to resort to obscure languages like Mbugu for examples of language mixing, it's because well-known languages such as English and Maltese don't qualify. kwami (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So we've got one linguist from 50 years ago (whose works are found cited throughout wikipedia), one linguist today whose works are also cited, but whose educational background is (for the moment) unknown, and then another modern day linguist who is part of the Department of Maltese at the University of Malta: Albert Borg (the person Mike Rosner cites). 78.149.222.247 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, as opposed to nearly everyone else. Pretty slim pickings. Thomason and Kaufman, in 400 pages on language contact, mixed languages, creoles, and the like, only mention Maltese to note that it shares the European propensity to devoice final consonants, which they argue is a Sicilian influence. They don't even think to mention that it isn't a mixed language. Maybe it's too obvious. kwami (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Once again, your (the anonymous IP's) definition of "mixed language" is not adequate. You talk about a typical language contact situation--where one language community overtakes another, and one community borrows lots and lots of words from the other--Just like in England after 1066. BUT you fail to mention the primary thing that makes a language "mixed"--the mixing of grammar. Maltese is grammatically a Semitic language, there's not real debate about the issue. If you have a Semitic grammar, whether you have a lot of Romance loanwords or not, you don't have a mixed language. Pure and simple. Thomason and Kaufman are the world's authorities on language contact phenomena and they don't list Maltese as a mixed language. There is not a single list of mixed languages in any authoritative linguistics text that includes Maltese in a list of mixed languages. It isn't a mixed language except in fringe positions (WP:Fringe). We have had this discussion many times before right here and the linguists are in agreement. Read the archives. Maltese is Semitic with Romance loanwords. That doesn't make it a mixed language. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

There is another serious problem with citing any source from 1958 about "mixed languages". The technical definition of a mixed language was not really developed until the 1970s. So using Aquilina as a source for calling Maltese a "mixed language" is like citing Jules Verne as an authority on space travel. (Taivo (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

You do realize Taivo, that the percentage of grammar which came from each parent is irrelevant when determining if a language is mixed or not. See our own page on the article, which clearly highlights it only matters that the final grammar is "fixed" into the language, unlike a pidgin. Not only that, but take a look at the other languages classified as mixed. Media Lengua for example, has Spanish lexical input, but a Quechua grammatical system - with no significant grammar input from Spanish; directly comparable to Maltese vocabulary being predominantly Romance, with grammar being Semitic. Then there's Mbugu, which has Bantu grammar with Cushitic vocabulary, but is described as a mixed language. Karipúna was mixed language with Galibi vocabulary and Palikur grammar. Surzhyk is a mixed language derived from Russian vocabulary and Ukrainian grammar. Senkyoshigo has a situation basically the same as Maltese - its grammar and function words are from one language (English in that case - Arabic in Maltese), while most of its content words are from another (Japanese/Sicilian). Madras Tamil has Tamil grammar but English vocab. It goes on and on. You see, the thing about a mixed language is not that grammar and vocabulary have both been equally interchanged - it is the fact that they have mixed in any way, shape, or form, amongst a population speaking both parent languages, to give a stable language with a resulting grammar, and a complex morphology.

Many linguists hold the position that Maltese is a Semitic language; several linguists claim that it is mixed; while others say that it is in fact more creoloid, or has features of all of these, which many linguists stating it is Semitic also say. The last bit is significant - the fact that several linguists admit that it is indeed a complex situation, highlights that this is not WP:FRINGE.

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." - the idea of being a mixed language does not contradict mainstream linguistics, since most linguists say it is a complicated situation which has elements of mixedness anyway.

For example, the idea of the Sun rotating round the Earth is completely discredited by all mainstream scientists - with only the religious taking this view - and there being no intermediate point. That is a fringe view. The situation of the classification of Maltese is thus different - Basically all the linguists who describe it as semitic, describe how it took in vast Romance inputs (this does not qualify it as a mixed language on its own, but means that when someone does, it is not considered "Fringe"), while several others claim that its situation is a difficult and unique one (this doesn't contradict with anyone's findings, so it's not Fringe), and others say that it has features of being both a Semitic, and a Mixed language - and this does not contradict the first point. If you need more, read the page on it. I am not in any way saying that the page should have every mention of the word "semitic" erased, and replaced with "mixed". What I am saying, is that a neutral point of view involves representing all sides of the argument as long as they are not (non-notably) fringe (and as established above, this case doesn't fit being "fringe" by definition). My change would be this (from here):

Classification

Maltese is a Semitic language descended from Siculo-Arabic, that in the course of its history has absorbed a predominant input from Sicilian and Standard Italian, to a lesser extent French, and more recently from English, through extensive borrowing, although grammar remains Semitic. Due to these Sicilian borrowings laid over the Siculo-Arabic, Maltese is occasionally described as "mixed", "creoloid", or a language with features of all of these, although Maltese is not typically considered to have experienced the grammatical changes that creoles undergo.

The Maltese language has historically experienced a whole multitude of differing classifications, each of which is disguarded today. Some claimed that the ancient Punic language was the base of the language, instead of Siculo-Arabic, while others believed the language to be purely Arabic, or wholly Berber, and under Fascist Italy, it was considered simply a dialect of Italian.

78.149.205.194 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Multitude" is not an accurate characterization and imparts a POV slant to the paragraph. Even the Punic classification is still a Semitic one. The language also doesn't "experience" anything. And not every one of the classifications has been "discarded"--one, the Siculo-Arabic one--is the accepted classification. The first couple of sentences should be:

• "During the last few centuries Maltese has also been classified in a few other ways, each of which has been discarded based on further scientific review. These include a descent from Punic and an origin as a contact language, either as a creoloid or a mixed language." (Taivo (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Have you been ignoring everything I've been saying? The idea that Maltese is a mixed language has not been discredited by anyone. The idea that it is a Creole certainly has been. I think if you continue, an RFC will have to be filed 78.149.205.194 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again you grossly overstate the issue of mixed language relative to Maltese and its non-Semitic content. In each of the mixed language cases you mention where vocabulary from one language is overlain on a grammatical base from another language, you are dealing with a situation where one language has provided the lexical content. In the case of Maltese, the "Romance" component cannot be treated as a unit (which you have done in conflating the input from Italian and Sicilian). You also list several languages or language varieties which are not widely accepted as mixed languages anyway--such as Surzhyk. It is also the case in these cases of relexification when nearly the entire vocabulary has been replaced by a second language. That is nowhere near the case with Maltese. You stretch the concept of "mixed language" when you try to shoehorn Maltese into that category. Show me any consensus among modern linguists that Maltese is a mixed language. You can name a couple of Maltese linguists (without references in peer-reviewed journals), but you cannot name anyone who is a leading authority in language contact research. (Taivo (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Ha, now this is amusing. You're saying that the classification of basically all mixed languages as mixed, is incorrect. Cannot name anyone who is a leading authority? Are you listening to what I'm writing? I dealed with this extensively in the above paragraph - read it again. 78.149.205.194 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't read correctly. All mixed languages are classified as "mixed". I never say anything otherwise. But your "listing" of mixed languages includes many languages that are not generally considered to be mixed or have not been described sufficiently to state with any certainty one way or the other. Mbugu and Michif, for example, are clearly mixed and generally accepted as such. Surzhyk, for example, is not a "definite". You also failed to mention a single authority on language contact who claims that Maltese is mixed. You have only mentioned a couple of people in Malta who make such a claim. Aquilina's work predates the precise definition of what a mixed language is (and is not), so his comments are irrelevant as are the comments of anyone else claiming "mixed" heritage for English, Swahili, etc. before the 1970s. The notion that Maltese is a mixed language is not held by the majority of specialists in language contact. And, Maltese as a mixed language has been discredited. (There is even a reference in the article to "Not the right mix"). Bring on RfC if you wish and all the linguists here will weigh in. As far as your one or two guys on Malta who haven't published anything, I'll stack them against the world's authorities on language contact who weigh in with the standard works on language contact (published this decade and not 50 years ago). (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you're wasting your time. In order to reason with someone, they have to be amenable to reason. How about, when we get these POV warriors, we simply point them to the notice at the top of this page, and if they object, they can take it directly to RfC as you suggest? Otherwise next month we're going to go through this all over again. kwami (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I blush with embarrassment as I admit that I've never noticed that note at the top of the page :p (Taivo (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh dear, I remember who Rosner is now--he's a computer scientist, not a linguist! So we are once again left with that fluff piece by Badia as the only "evidence" of the mixed language POV. It is impossible to think that every single time we have this discussion here, the mixed language proponent "accidentally" discovers the same two poor references for the issue--a computer programmer and a mystery linguist whose qualifications and research are completely unknown. (Taivo (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Dear dear, shows your ignorance. Do you know where Rosner gets this information from? Albert Borg, who is affiliated with the University of Malta in the Department of linguistics. Try again. 78.146.251.146 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If Borg has published this in a peer-reviewed reliable source, then cite him, but Rosner is not a reliable source for a throwaway comment in a paper on computer science--we've discussed this issue many times already right here on this Talk Page. Read the history of this debate in the archives. (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

If you don't know who Albert Borg is, then please leave this page. I am shocked that you think of yourself so highly, and barge your way in at this article, without knowing one of the most important people when talking about the Maltese language. I am quite frankly, gobsmacked. 78.146.251.146 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Borg cowrote the Routledge grammar of Maltese (in which he does not call Maltese a mixed language). I didn't say I was unfamiliar with the gentleman, I asked whether you have a quote from him in a reliable source that says "Maltese is a mixed language". He doesn't say that in the grammar he wrote of the language (which is the perfect place for just such a comment if he made it). In looking through the volume, I've seen no such comment. And "barging your way in" seems to be more descriptive of your actions as an anonymous IP. (Taivo (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

It's not really anonymous, it's been banned from editing Wikipedia and is working around the block. It's just a sock for MagdalenaDiArco, who's been pushing this bullshit for years. I say we just ignore it and revert everything it edits without comment other than 'sock'. kwami (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad references and unreliable sources

The references to Badia are an embarrassment to this article since they are not found in a peer-reviewed reliable source. They are in a tourist oriented web link. Find a source from him in a peer-reviewed reliable linguistic journal and we can discuss it. The references to Stolz and Mori are also not Wikipedia reliable sources since no one is referencing their actual writings in peer-reviewed sources, just Mori's conference abstract that is on-line. That is not a scientific source. That is no better than citing Wikipedia as a source--it is not peer-reviewed and it is not published. I am going to remove references to non-peer-reviewed, non-published works unless someone can actually come up with the real publications. (Taivo (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, this is a sockpuppet that's been pushing this nonsense for years. (And now blocked, though it will just get another IP for the next edit.) You don't need to convince anyone, nor to justify your reverts. You seem to be under the delusion that we're dealing with a rational being. If Wikipedia were serious about preventing abuse, we'd require people to sign in in order to edit. But as a half-way measure, I can protect the article if you like. kwami (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a rational person? You do realize I came and raised it on the talk page before I even touched the page. Also, you're only half right. I've certainly edited here before, yes - but not from a banned, or even blocked user. You'll notice my edits don't match User:Yorkshirian in any way, if you were to actually bother looking. 78.146.186.109 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is "creoloid" of sufficient note to mention? Does the word even have a definition? kwami (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did try to remove it - then it was put back in. So then I at least tried to change the word "creoloid" to like a creole, but again, it was changed back. I guess you really weren't looking at what you were reverting. ;) 78.146.186.109 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Badia ref. We can find other sources for it's legitimate uses. kwami (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the only mention of "creoloid" is in the conference abstract from Mori where the author summarizes Stolz. I suspect that no one has ever actually referred to the actual Stolz article here, but only summarized the statements made by Mori about his arguments. Until there is an actual reference to a peer-reviewed work wherein Maltese is called "mixed" or "creoloid" they should be removed. Right now there are only two sources and neither passes as a reliable source. If the anonymous IP sock continues, then the article should be protected after I make my edit. (Taivo (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Doint that is not acceptable. Albert Borg states it is a mixed language, as stated above. And you of course "claim" to know who he is and accept his authority. 78.146.186.109 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Borg does not claim that Maltese is a mixed language in his grammar of Maltese. He may say that over coffee, but unless he has published that opinion in a reliable source it does not count here. Give me a quote from one of his peer-reviewed writings that says that. (Taivo (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Protected the article. Taivo, just ignore the puppet. We should spend time improving the article, not spitting into the wind. kwami (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know I should, but old habits die hard :p (Taivo (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

• In my opinion Maltese is a mixed language.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your opinion doesn't count. Reliable linguists say it is not and there is no reliable linguistic source that says it is. (Taivo (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

We need a Maltese grammar article

K, so the current "Grammar" section in the article is good, but I think that the grammar of the Maltese language could be best served with an article of its own. Could it work? --Daniel Blanchette (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

italian word "vertenza sindacale"

In "Vocabulary" section the italian sentence "vertenza sindicale" is incorrect, it should be changed in "vertenza sindacale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.marconi (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor mistakes that should be edited

To whom it may concern,

There are a few mistakes that my eyes have noticed throughout the article but which I cannot amend to myself, hence this message here.

First and foremost: the Maltese equivalent of sesame seeds is "gunglien" [one sesame seed would be "gungliena"] the Maltese equivalent of dog is "kelb"

As for translation, "waqt" does not mean the English word "time". "Waqt" translates to "moment" in English.

While I'm at it I'd also like to point out that the letter "Ħ ħ" in the Maltese alphabet is very similar to the pronounciation of the letter "h" (English alphabet) in "hiss" (English).

Thank you.

K.Zahra (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)