Philippusb
Hi Philippusb, I took the liberty to revert your edits on Template:Varieties of Arabic. As was previously discussed, the template is not about dialects of the Arabic language, but about languages within the Arabic family (just like other families like Germanic, Latin, etc.) — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "Arabic family of languages" in the same sense as Germanic or Romance families. These latter families are composed of languages in their own right with each member having its own standardised written form, without having to defer to some "standard German" or "Latin" for literary purposes. On the other hand, the Arabic family you are referring to is composed of dialects not languages. These dialects defer to Standard Arabic as the literary form, as stated in the template itself. Unlike these dialects, Maltese has its own standardised literary form (first standardisation was by Mikiel Anton Vassalli in the late 18th century) and has never had any diglossia with Arabic. It also noted that it has always used the latin alphabet since it was first written over 500 years ago. In summary, Maltese evolved from Siculo-Arabic over 800 years into a language in its own right that is part of the Semitic family (despite use of latin alphabet and 52% of vocabulary from Italian) since the basic vocabulary (32-40%) and most of the grammatical rules came from Siculo-Arabic Philippusb (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well the template is not about Standard Arabic which is a particular literary form, it is about all languages and dialects derived from Arabic. Maltese is one of these languages that for cultural reasons is not called Arabic, but has clearly descended from it. I suggest you look at the family tree on Maltese language. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The family tree you mention is correct but your table is not. It is titled "Varieties of Arabic" and says that the Modern Literary form of these varieties is Modern Standard Arabic (and has a link to it). A "variety of Arabic" is not the same as a descendent of Arabic, apart from the fact that standard arabic has never been the literary form of Maltese. Maltese is my native language by the way Philippusb (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what your concern is. I suggest then that, since Maltese is a standardized language on its own, it should be added to the literary category as well (which I think should be renamed to "standardized forms" or something similar). It doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view to remove Maltese simply on sociological grounds so I think the solution I'm suggesting could resolve the problem. What do you think? By the way, I myself speak some Tunisian Arabic and let me tell you it has a lot in common with Maltese (at least when I see it written) ;) — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maltese is a distinct language (with its own regional dialects) not merely due to "sociological" or "cultural" grounds. Academic studies have shown that words of Siculo-Arabic origin constitute only 32% of the Maltese lexicon and only 40% of a sample of Quranic Arabic roots were found in Maltese, a considerably lower percentage than Moroccan (58%) or Lebanese Arabic (72%). Your proposal to include Maltese as one of the standardised forms of the "varieties of arabic" listed would incorrectly imply that Maltese is merely a latin transcription of Arabic or arabic variety. The title of the table is also misrepresentative since, as already pointed out, Maltese is not a variety of Arabic but a descendent of a variety of arabic. The table should focus on dialects of Arabic, which is what all the other listed varieties are, and not over-extend its scope by including maltese. However, one can still associate Maltese with the table without misrepresenting it if my original edit (see history) is accepted i.e. putting a footnote next to Siculo-Arabic saying that it is "extinct but evolved into a separate language (Maltese)". This edit is consistent with the language family tree Philippusb (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what your concern is. I suggest then that, since Maltese is a standardized language on its own, it should be added to the literary category as well (which I think should be renamed to "standardized forms" or something similar). It doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view to remove Maltese simply on sociological grounds so I think the solution I'm suggesting could resolve the problem. What do you think? By the way, I myself speak some Tunisian Arabic and let me tell you it has a lot in common with Maltese (at least when I see it written) ;) — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The family tree you mention is correct but your table is not. It is titled "Varieties of Arabic" and says that the Modern Literary form of these varieties is Modern Standard Arabic (and has a link to it). A "variety of Arabic" is not the same as a descendent of Arabic, apart from the fact that standard arabic has never been the literary form of Maltese. Maltese is my native language by the way Philippusb (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well the template is not about Standard Arabic which is a particular literary form, it is about all languages and dialects derived from Arabic. Maltese is one of these languages that for cultural reasons is not called Arabic, but has clearly descended from it. I suggest you look at the family tree on Maltese language. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Maltese Muslim expulsion
editThe claim that all Maltese Muslims were expelled in 1249 is not specified by Goodwin. In fact, you have removed Goodwin's more specific quote and reference (which notes that there were still Maltese Muslims into the 15th century) with a general Goodwin fact. Specific information always overrides the general sort.58.106.230.133 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The date of 1249 was recorded by the other reference that you removed. Moreover, Goodwin makes a note of this well-known expulsion/forced conversion by saying on page 34 of his book: "Most probably the often alleged expulsion of the Muslims from the island in the 1240s involved only some Muslims who refused to convert to christianity". There is no recorded evidence of Muslims in Malta after that date. Elsewhere, Goodwin says that "by the end of the 15th century all Maltese Muslims would be forced to convert to Christianity". Although this statement is technically correct (since the expulsion could have happened any time before that, like 1249) it is misleading since it seeks to give the false impression of a longer Muslim presence in Malta. It is also contradicted by the events of 1429, which he conveniently does not mention (siege of Malta).
talk I don't understand why you remove the text I add, the sources clearly says and shows the similarities between Tunisian and Maltese Tounsimentounes (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The reference of Borg and Azzopardi Alexander says it displays some "areal traits", and that the immediate ancestor is Siculo-Arabic, whose ancestor was Maghrebi (already recognized in language family tree). It also says that Maltese evolved independently over 800 years! Moreover, genetic studies by Capelli et al clearly show that there is no genetic link with North Africa. Hence, it is completely misleading to write about "cultural and historical links". Moreover, Tunisia (as it is known now) did not even exist at the time Malta was part of Arab Sicily (which is why the ancestor of Siculo-Arabic is called Maghrebi not Tunisian). I feel I have to flag my concern about your intentions. 09:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Philippusb (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)