# Dialects and language (Iberian languages)



## Luceni

OHSU said:


> Of course not. Subsequent to the dissolution of Visigoth Hispania, and previous to the unification of the Christian kingdoms *there was no Spain, and hence there was no Spanish language.* By the time Castile rose to power, the historical languages of the peninsula were well established entities.
> 
> The first published grammar of any Romance language (written to give additional prestige to the newly unified kingdom of Spain, if I remember correctly) was written by Antonio de Nebrija and was called _Grammatica dela Lingua Castellianna _(1492)_._ Other early texts on Spanish language were, _La manera de escribir en castellano_ (Martín Cordero, 1556), _Gramática castellana_ (Cristóbal de Villalón, 1558), and _Ortografía castellana_ (Gonzalo Correas, 1630).
> 
> The idea that Castilian is the _Spanish_ language is something that evolved over time and is obviously not a settled matter today.



El idioma de la España visigoda era el latín vulgar. El castellano todavía no existía como lengua diferenciada. Y lo mismo ocurría con el resto de las lenguas latinas españolas.

La invasión musulmana y la atomización territorial de la resistencia hispánica provocó que el latín evolucionaría de forma no unitaria en cada uno de esos territorios. De ahí fueron surgiendo las diversas hablas romances. Algunas llegaron a consolidarse como lenguas y otras se quedaron como dialectos evolucionados del latín vulgar que con el tiempo se fueron extinguiendo.

Una aclaración sobre algo que dices. Durante los siglos de atomización territorial, España no existía como estado unificado, pero sí como concepto histórico, cultural y sociopolítico. 
Como ha explicado en bastantes publicaciones sobre el tema la Real Academia de la Historia, todos los reyes hispánicos estaban emparentados y tomaban su legitimidad de la monarquía visigoda. Además se pusieron de acuerdo para fijar los diversos espacios de expasión en la lucha común contra el estado musulmán y siempre dieron por hecho que cuando lograran la derrota del islam, reunificarían la monarquía. El mantenimiento de varios pequeños reinos, primero, y de dos grandes coronas después fue una apuesta estratégica. Si uno de ellos caía frente al islam, el principio de legitimidad y la bandera de la resistencia sería mantenido por quien quedara. 
En cualquier caso, esos reyes y y el pueblo seguían viendo España como ente histórico, cultural e incluso político-económico. Un ejemplo, los comerciantes y marinos de los diversos reinos hispánicos que vivían en centros comerciales de la Europa medieval, formaron las 'universidades de mercaderes', algo así como sindicatos o asociaciones profesionales, para defender sus intereses. Todos estaban juntos y se hacían llamar 'universidad de mercaderes de España'.

Con respecto a la lengua y a mi uso particular, he estudiado historia y filología y por deformación profesional uso habitualmente 'español' y 'castellano' en su sentido 'técnico' o 'científico'. Castellano, como la lengua romance medieval y español, como la lengua moderna de extensión global. Además, el español es una de mis dos lenguas (la otra es el vasco) y yo no soy de Castilla, así que para mí no tiene sentido llamarlo 'castellano'.

Como dices bien, la primera gramática, la de Nebrija, se llamaba 'de la lengua castellana' (1492). Pero sólo unas décadas después, el término español ya se había consolidado. En 1534 cuando el escritor catalán Joan /Juan Boscán, que era bilingüe, traduce Il Cortigliano de Castiglione ya habla en su prólogo de la edición española _"de estas lenguas italiana y española"._ La monarquía reunificada, primero, y el Imperio después, necesitaban por pura motivación práctica una lengua común de comunicación. Y como ocurrió con el toscano en Italia, la que era conocida por más personas en todo el reino y la que tenía más prestigio y difusión en los ambientes cultos fue la que cumplió ese papel.


----------



## OHSU

Luceni said:


> El idioma de la España visigoda era el latín vulgar.


 
*Vulgar Latin was not a uniform entity.* It is common for people to employ the term "vulgar Latin" as if it referred to a single tongue, but it was highly variable from one region to another. In English, the varieties of vulgar Latin spoken in Iberia are sometimes collectively referred to as *Iberian Romance*.



Luceni said:


> La invasión musulmana y la atomización territorial de la resistencia hispánica provocó que el latín evolucionaría de forma no unitaria en cada uno de esos territorios. De ahí fueron surgiendo las diversas hablas romances.


 
There is no reason to believe that Iberian Romance was a uniform entity, either, or that it _only_ began to evolve into different varieties _after_ the breakup of Visigoth Hispania. *It was doubtlessly spoken differently in different regions before the Muslim invasion.*



Luceni said:


> Algunas llegaron a consolidarse como lenguas y otras se quedaron como dialectos evolucionados del latín vulgar que con el tiempo se fueron extinguiendo.


 
From the standpoint of linguistics, there is no clear distinction between a "language" and a "dialect". *All languages are dialects and all dialects are languages.* There is no process by which a tongue "consolidates into a language". Likewise, there is no process by which a tongue "remains a dialect".

Some varieties of Iberian Romance rose to prestige and became recognized as "languages" because the group who spoke them developed *political power*. Others remained marginalized and became known as "dialects" because their group didn't acquire power. But readers should remember that this language/dialect dichotomy is political not linguistic.

*"A language is a dialect with an army and navy."*


----------



## Luceni

OHSU said:


> *Vulgar Latin was not a uniform entity.* It is common for people to employ the term "vulgar Latin" as if it referred to a single tongue, but it was highly variable from one region to another. In English, the varieties of vulgar Latin spoken in Iberia are sometimes collectively referred to as *Iberian Romance*.


 
Yo no he dicho que fuera una entidad uniforme. 



> There is no reason to believe that Iberian Romance was a uniform entity, either, or that it _only_ began to evolve into different varieties _after_ the breakup of Visigoth Hispania. *It was doubtlessly spoken differently in different regions before the Muslim invasion.*


Véamos si puedo resumir lo complejo. Lo remarcado en negrita es correcto. Pero la cuestión es que las tres lenguas latinas de España (español, catalán y gallego) no surgieron de esa variedad inicial. _"Toda esa naciente diversidad fue (a pesar de haber sido mantenida durante un tiempo por el romance mozárabe) arrinconada y barrida por la dominación musulmana. Y sólo fueron evolucionando y creciendo -estimuladas por el aislamiento territorial de los primeros tiempos- las variedades locales de los pequeños núcleos de resistencia cristiana en las montañas del norte" _(Alonso Zamora-Vicente, RAE). De oeste a este esas variedades primeras fueron: el gallego, el asturiano-leonés, el castellano, el navarro-aragonés y el catalán. El asturiano-leonés y el navarro-aragonés se fueron progresivamente abandonando en favor del castellano. El proceso de reconquista fue extendiendo las tres lenguas hacia el sur en detrimento del árabe y de las múltiples variedades del 'mozárabe' (el romance hablado en la parte de España sometida al islam).




> From the standpoint of linguistics, there is no clear distinction between a "language" and a "dialect". *All languages are dialects and all dialects are languages.* There is no process by which a tongue "consolidates into a language". Likewise, there is no process by which a tongue "remains a dialect".


En la lingüística que a mí me han enseñado sí la hay. Los dialectos son _"variedades geográficas de una lengua que no han adquirido la personalidad gramátical y léxica suficiente como para convertirse en otra lengua diferenciada"_. Genéticamente, toda lengua comienza como un dialecto de otra hasta que la evolución la hace lo suficientemente diferente del tronco originario y se convierte en una lengua nueva. Hay dialectos que mueren o se estancan sin llegar a completar el proceso diferenciador. En España, el asturiano-leonés y el navarro-aragonés fueron un ejemplo de eso.



> Some varieties of Iberian Romance rose to prestige and became recognized as "languages" because the group who spoke them developed *political power*. Others remained marginalized and became known as "dialects" because their group didn't acquire power. But readers should remember that this language/dialect dichotomy is political not linguistic.


El proceso diferenciador es lingüístico, no político. Aragón, por ejemplo, tenía poder político y, sin embargo, su romance originario se quedó en dialecto al no completarse el proceso evolutivo. Nadie 'marginó' a ese dialecto. Simplemente sus hablantes lo abandonaron progresivamente sin ninguna coerción. Ahí funcionó simplemente el prestigio cultural del castellano. Y lo mismo ocurrió en León.


> *"A language is a dialect with an army and navy."*


Un ejército no convierte a un dialecto en una lengua. El poder militar lo que hace (como el poder económico, el político o el cultural) es que una lengua sea más o menos extensa territorial o numéricamente. Cosa que es muy diferente. Y que no es ningún pecado, por cierto, sino una simple dinámica de los procesos históricos.

Por mi parte, última aportación a este hilo. 
Saludos y feliz año nuevo.


----------



## OHSU

Luceni said:


> En la lingüística que a mí me han enseñado sí la hay. Los dialectos son _"variedades geográficas de una lengua que no han adquirido la personalidad gramátical y léxica suficiente como para convertirse en otra lengua diferenciada"_.


 
You've misunderstood how this definition applies to the question at hand. This definition describes the relationship between *two languages* (they're sufficiently different from one another) or *two dialects* (they're not sufficiently different from one another), not the relationship between a *language and a dialect*.

For example, according to this definition, Spanish and French would be considered two different languages, while American English and Australian English would be considered dialects (of English).

However, there's nothing in this definition that would elevate (for example) Catalan to the status of "language" and consign (for example) Aragonese to the status of "dialect".

*dialecto*

*1. m. Ling. Sistema lingüístico considerado con relación al grupo de los varios derivados de un tronco común. El español es uno de los dialectos nacidos del latín. (DRAE)*

According to the definition above, *all languages are dialects*, because all languages descend from a predecessor language and have a relationship with other languages which also descended from the same predecessor.

For example the varieties of Spanish in Latin America, the Canaries, Andalusia, Extremadura, and Central Spain are dialects of Castilian, because they all descend from Castilian. Similarly, Valenciano, Balearic, and standard Catalan are all dialects of Catalan. By the same token, Castilian, Galician, and Catalan are dialects of Iberian Romance. It can also be said that Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian are dialects of Vulgar Latin.

*In this sense, there is no language that cannot be said to be a dialect.*

*lengua*

*2. f. Sistema de comunicación verbal y casi siempre escrito, propio de una comunidad humana. (DRAE)*

In this sense all dialects are languages. Andalusian is clearly a dialect of Castilian, but it is no less a _complete_ language than standard Castilian, no less _useful_ for communication, no less... anything. Andalusians employ a mode of communication that fulfills every linguistic criterion of "language".

*There is no dialect (certainly not among the ones we're considering in this discussion) that isn't a complete form of verbal and written communication, equally complex and useful for communicating as any other language you could think of.*


*Every language is a dialect and every dialect is a language*, because every language is a descendent of a predecessor language, and every dialect (at least the ones we're considering here) is a complete system of written and spoken communication used by a community of people.



Luceni said:


> Hay dialectos que mueren o se estancan sin llegar a completar el proceso diferenciador.


 
You make "el proceso diferenciador" sound like a butterfly coming out of a cocoon. At what point does a dialect complete this process? How would an observer know when the process is complete? I mean, exactly how different do two dialects have to be before we consider them to be different languages? Who decides? What tool or instrument do we use for measuring the differences between two dialects? Is there some kind of a scale?

And how, exactly, does a dialect stagnate (_estancarse)_? What _linguistic_ phenomena accompany dialectal stagnation? Does the vocabulary get less precise? Does the grammar fall apart? Does the phonology homogenize? From a strictly _linguistic_ point of view (not socio-political), describe the process of dialectal stagnation.

The simple fact is that when a linguistic variety acquires social prestige by becoming the official variety of some political entity (a kingdom, country, province, or semi-autonomous region) we call it a "language", while contemporaneous varieties that don't acquire such prestige are relegated to the status of "dialect".



Luceni said:


> El proceso diferenciador es lingüístico, no político.


 
The process of differentiation is linguistic, true. However, which of two offspring will be called a "language" and which will be called a "dialect" is a social phenomenon. If one of two sister dialects goes on to acquire sufficient political influence, it will be called a "language", while the one that doesn't will be called a "dialect". This is a socio-poliltical distinction, having no linguistic justification.



Luceni said:


> Aragón, por ejemplo, tenía poder político y, sin embargo, su romance originario se quedó en dialecto al no completarse el proceso evolutivo.


 
So, was Aragonese a language or a dialect back when it was the official mode of written and spoken communication of the medieval kindgom of Aragon? Did it used to be a language hundreds of years ago and then degenerate into a dialect in modern times? Did it suffer some form of linguistic deterioration as it fell from language to dialect? 

Now, please describe the evolutionary process you refer to here and how Aragonese failed to complete it. For example, did Aragonese not diverge linguistically sufficiently from Iberian Romance? Or perhaps it didn't diverge sufficiently from Castilian and Catalan. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that Aragonese is a dialect _of _Castilian or Catalan, but a contemporary or sister dialect.) How different is Aragonese from Castilian, exactly? Of Castilian, Catalan, and Aragonese, which two are the most similar, or are they equally different? By what measure? Is Aragonese more different from Castilian and Catalan than Galician is from Portuguese?

The definition upon which you're basing your entire argument deals exclusively with the extent to which two languages have diverged from one another, nothing else. That definition has nothing whatsoever to do with your discussion of Aragonese, which is entirely socio-political.



Luceni said:


> Nadie 'marginó' a ese dialecto. Simplemente sus hablantes lo abandonaron progresivamente sin ninguna coerción. Ahí funcionó simplemente el prestigio cultural del castellano. Y lo mismo ocurrió en León.


 
Exactly. Think about what you just said for a moment. With this paragraph you've disagreed with your previous argument that dialect/language is a linguistic distinction, and you've agreed with my position that it is socio-political.

*Consolidating cultural prestige isn't a linguistic phenomenon. It's a social and political one.* This is what I've been saying from the beginning.



Luceni said:


> Un ejército no convierte a un dialecto en una lengua. El poder militar lo que hace (como el poder económico, el político o el cultural) es que una lengua sea más o menos extensa territorial o numéricamente. Cosa que es muy diferente. Y que no es ningún pecado, por cierto, sino una simple dinámica de los procesos históricos.


 
Nobody claimed that armies convert dialects into languages. The point is that cultures that are in possession of armies and navies have economic, political, and cultural influence sufficient to spread the territorial and demographic reach of their dialect. At some point, either via decree or consensus, people come to recognize the dialect of socio-politically dominant groups as languages. However, at no time in this exhilirating "proceso evolutivo" does the dialect actually undergo a linguistic change.

And nobody claimed this was a sin, merely a fact. Dialects rise to the status of "language" as they acquire socio-political and cultural influence. This is not a linguistic phenomenon, except to the extent that it is of interest to sociolinguists.


----------



## OHSU

My graduate degree is in sociolinguistics/dialectology, so this topic is near and dear to my heart. It was fun typing it all out, and I hope someone else learns something from it, even if it ends up getting deleted.

Anyone who wants to debate theory or (in somewhat less detail) history of Iberian/Ibero-American dialectology, I'd be thrilled to exchange PMs.


----------



## tenpao

Lamento que *Luceni* no quiera responder, pero me gustaría añadir un par de consideraciones, siempre teniendo en cuenta que mis conocimientos son bastante limitados.

*Ohsu* parece pensar que cuando *Luceni* usa _lengua/dialecto_ está haciendo una distinción jerárquica, otorgando a dialecto una connotación despectiva (le falta algo para alcanzar el _estatus_ de lengua). Aunque es cierto que, sobre todo en el pasado, se contemplaba el tema así, no me parece que ahora sea lo habitual y no creo que sea lo que quería decir *Luceni*. Esto es lo que decía en su aportación:



Luceni said:


> En la lingüística que a mí me han enseñado sí la hay. Los dialectos son "variedades geográficas *de una lengua* que no han adquirido la personalidad gramátical y léxica suficiente como para convertirse *en otra lengua diferenciada*".



Las negritas son mías.

Evidentemente los dialectos son lenguas, pero no varían suficientemente como para ser consideradas lenguas diferenciadas. No es un tema de jerarquía, como dice la definición es más bien un tema geográfico.



OHSU said:


> For example, according to this definition, Spanish and French would be considered two different languages, while American English and Australian English would be considered dialects (of English).



Correcto.



OHSU said:


> However, there's nothing in this definition that would elevate (for example) Catalan to the status of "language" and consign (for example) Aragonese to the status of "dialect".



No se trata de elevar. Ser dialecto no tiene una connotación despectiva.


OHSU said:


> *dialecto*
> 
> *1. m. Ling. Sistema lingüístico considerado con relación al grupo de los varios derivados de un tronco común. El español es uno de los dialectos nacidos del latín. (DRAE)*
> 
> According to the definition above, *all languages are dialects*, because all languages descend from a predecessor language and have a relationship with other languages which also descended from the same predecessor.


 
Claro, pero no citas la segunda acepción del DRAE:

_2. m. Ling. Sistema lingüístico derivado de otro, normalmente con una concreta limitación geográfica, pero sin diferenciación suficiente frente a otros de origen común._

Que es la definición utilizada por *Luceni* o por mí.



OHSU said:


> *In this sense, there is no language that cannot be said to be a dialect.*



No es ése el sentido al que se refiere *Luceni*.



OHSU said:


> *lengua*
> 
> *2. f. Sistema de comunicación verbal y casi siempre escrito, propio de una comunidad humana. (DRAE)*
> 
> In this sense all dialects are languages. Andalusian is clearly a dialect of Castilian, but it is no less a _complete_ language than standard Castilian, no less _useful_ for communication, no less... anything. Andalusians employ a mode of communication that fulfills every linguistic criterion of "language".



Nadie dice que el andaluz no sea una lengua, es español o castellano. Pero no es una lengua diferenciada, distinta (que es lo que decía la definición aportada por *Luceni* o la segunda acepción del DRAE que cito yo). En Estados Unidos se habla inglés, el mismo idioma que en Gran Brestaña, no son idiomas distintos, pero tampoco son el mismo dialecto, hay diferencias entre ellos. De hecho, según esta definición que menciono, sería un problema utilizar la expresión *castellano o español estándar*. ¿Quién decide cuál es el estándar? Yo hablo español de Castilla, pero no diría que es el estándar del idioma. Para mí no es más que un dialecto tan válido como el argentino o el mexicano. Nunca más. ¿Cuál es el estándar del inglés? ¿el británico? ¿el de Inglaterra? ¿Por qué?

*estándar.*

_(Del ingl. standard).

1. adj. Que sirve como tipo, modelo, norma, patrón o referencia._

¿Los americanos siguen el modelo del inglés de Inglaterra? No me había dado esa impresión.

Copio esto de la entrada *dialecto* de _Wikipedia_:

_Hay dos acepciones principales de dialecto. Una es la que lo considera como lengua derivada de otra. Así, el francés es un dialecto del latín, el cual a su vez es un dialecto del indoeuropeo; o bien el castellano, el catalán, el francés, el italiano, etc. son dialectos del latín, mientras que el latín, el griego, el persa, el /sánscrito, etc. son dialectos del indoeuropeo. Esta acepción suele funcionar en el ámbito del historicismo y, por tanto, dialecto es un término técnico de la lingüística históricocomparativa. *La otra acepción de la palabra lo define como variedad geográfica dentro de una misma lengua.*
_

_Jesús Tusón, Introducción al lenguaje, págs. 103-104._

La negrita es mía.

Todas las lenguas son dialectos porque derivan de otras. Las lenguas tienen diferentes variantes que, también, llamamos dialectos. En ocasiones, algunos de esos dialectos varían tanto que se convierten en lenguas distintas de la original. En otras ocasiones no, y siguen siendo la misma lengua.

Efectivamente el tema es confuso porque las definiciones no son claras y a veces incluso contradictorias y, además, en muchas ocasiones se han utilizado las lenguas como instrumentos políticos utilizando los términos con una clara intención partidista.

Para el que le interese el tema recomiendo:

_Una historia de las lenguas y los nacionalismos,_ de *Xabier Zabaltza*. En concreto su capítulo 2, _Lengua y dialecto_.


----------



## OHSU

tenpao said:


> Efectivamente el tema es confuso porque las definiciones no son claras y a veces incluso contradictorias y, además, en muchas ocasiones se han utilizado las lenguas como instrumentos políticos utilizando los términos con una clara intención partidista.


 
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo.



tenpao said:


> *Ohsu* parece pensar que cuando *Luceni* usa _lengua/dialecto_ está haciendo una distinción jerárquica...


 
That's exactly what he's doing when he says that Catalan is a language but Aragonese is a dialect.

I agree with you about the meaning of the definition he gave at the beginning. The problem is that he failed to apply that definition correctly.



tenpao said:


> Aunque es cierto que, sobre todo en el pasado, se contemplaba el tema así, no me parece que ahora sea lo habitual


 
It is very common for Spaniards to say that "Spain has 4 languages and several dialects", giving special status to Galician, Catalan, Basque, and Castilian. However, there are a few tens of thousands of speakers of Aragonese, for example, and Aragonese is a contemporary of the "languages", not a "dialect" of any of them.

So, why is Aragonese a "dialect" and Catalan a "language"? Why is Asturian a "dialect" and Galician a "language"?

Of course other linguistic varieties, such as Valencian, Andalusian, Extremeño, and Balearic, are dialects of Catalan and Castilian, respectively, and so I understand the rationale in referring to them as dialects in common parlance (although they're also languages).

The point is that in Spanish society the distinction between "language" and "dialect" is generally based on socio-political status. Speakers of Galician, for example, are often offended if someone suggests that they speak a dialect and often respond "el gallego es una _lengua_, no un _dialecto"._ In their mind there is something _despectiva_ about the term. Of course Galician is both a language and a dialect. It is a complete verbal and written form of communication used by a community of people, and it is a historical dialect of Iberian Romance. So, I'm thrilled to agree that Galician is a language. I've always beleived so. However, it's also one of the historical dialects of Iberian Romance, which makes it a dialect, too. The *exact* same situation applies to Aragonese and Asturian. They are not dialects of Castilian, Catalan, or Galician, but contemporaries. The only differences between the "dialects" and the "languages" are the number of people who speak them and their respective social prestige. There is no linguistic difference. 



tenpao said:


> Evidentemente los dialectos son lenguas, pero no varían suficientemente como para ser consideradas lenguas diferenciadas. No es un tema de jerarquía, como dice la definición es más bien un tema geográfico.


 
Please explain how that definition applies to Aragonese being a "dialect" and Catalan being a "language".



tenpao said:


> _2. m. Ling. Sistema lingüístico derivado de otro, normalmente con una concreta limitación geográfica, pero sin diferenciación suficiente frente a otros de origen común._


 
Please explain how that definition places Aragonese in the status of "dialect" and Catalan in the status of "language".



tenpao said:


> Yo hablo español de Castilla, pero no diría que es el estándar del idioma. Para mí no es más que un dialecto tan válido como el argentino o el mexicano.


 
Exactly. You speak a language (a complete system of verbal and written communication), and your language is one of many dialects of Castilian. It also happens that your dialect is considered standard and has the official status of "language" within Spain.

You speak a language that is a dialect of a language.  : )



tenpao said:


> Todas las lenguas son dialectos porque derivan de otras. Las lenguas tienen diferentes variantes que, también, llamamos dialectos. En ocasiones, algunos de esos dialectos varían tanto que se convierten en lenguas distintas de la original. En otras ocasiones no, y siguen siendo la misma lengua.


 
I agree 100% with what you've said here. Now, how does this justify calling Aragonese a "dialect" and Catalan a "language"?


----------



## tenpao

OHSU said:


> Estoy totalmente de acuerdo.
> 
> That's exactly what he's doing when he says that Catalan is a language but Aragonese is a dialect.
> 
> I agree with you about the meaning of the definition he gave at the beginning. The problem is that he failed to apply that definition correctly.



Habría que preguntarle a *Luceni*. En la mayoría de los textos que he consultado mencionan que el dialecto navarro-aragonés se abandonó en favor del castellano o el catalán. Lo mismo con el astur-leonés que se abandonó en favor del castellano. Entiendo que a eso se refiere, que no pudo seguir diferenciándose, quedándose estancado y desapareciendo.

Sin embargo, desde hace bastantes años en España hay un interés en *recuperar* estas _lenguas/dialectos_ y es posible que ahora cuenten con muchos hablantes (la Wikipedia habla de 10000 hablantes de aragonés). Desconozco cuál ha sido la evolución, qué parte se ha recuperado, cuál reconstruido, cuál inventado.

Mi familia es de Asturias y opinan que el bable (el asturianu) que enseñan en la escuela es una pura invención, que nunca se habló así, que ellos hablaban castellano con algunas pequeñas diferencias. Es posible que tengan razón o tal vez estén equivocados y en otras zonas sí se hablara o se conservara mejor.

Como no conozco demasiado el tema, no tengo problema en admitir que el aragonés o el asturianu son *lenguas diferenciadas*. Prefiero ser precavido.



OHSU said:


> It is very common for Spaniards to say that "Spain has 4 languages and several dialects", giving special status to Galician, Catalan, Basque, and Castilian. However, there are a few tens of thousands of speakers of Aragonese, for example, and Aragonese is a contemporary of the "languages", not a "dialect" of any of them.




Porque históricamente está claro que hay cuatro lenguas diferenciadas. Es evidente. Las otras (asturianu, aragonés, aranés, etc.) no son tan evidentes. No se trata de dar estatus especial o despreciar, es puro desconocimiento. Estamos hablando de lenguas con una impantación mínima. No se puede esperar que todo el mundo esté al tanto de todos los temas lingüisticos. 

No es cierto que en España la distinción entre lengua y dialecto esté generalmente basada en si la lengua en cuestión ha obtenido un estatus especial. En ocasiones puede ser así (más en el pasado que ahora), pero no es algo general.



OHSU said:


> Exactly. You speak a language (a complete system of verbal and written communication), and your language is one of many dialects of Castilian. It also happens that your dialect is considered standard and has the official status of "language" within Spain.



No, ¿quién lo considera estándar?

De *español estándar* de la Wikipedia:

_El español estándar es la forma *artificialmente* elaborada (o forma estándar) por los organismos competentes (Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española), con carácter normativo, a partir del diasistema del español... el español estándar *no*  *un dialecto acotado geográficamente a una determinada región*, sino una *modalidad elaborada artificialmente*._

Ningún dialecto concreto se considera estándar.

Mi dialecto no tiene _estatus oficial de lengua_ (algo que no tiene sentido). Cuando la Constitución española habla de _castellano_ no se refiere a mi dialecto, sino al idioma, a la lengua española.


----------



## OHSU

You've repeatedly used the word "differentiation", but you haven't said what you mean by that. Differentiation from what? Differentiation from Vulgar Latin? Differentiation from Catalan or Castilian? You're using this term as if it were obvious what it meant, but you haven't made any effort to describe the process of "differentiation" or specify how the languages/dialects in question have "differentiated" or failed to "differentiate".

Perhaps it would be easier for you to make your case with some examples. Why don't you post a paragraph of written Aragonese and point out in concrete, meaningful, *linguistic* terms precisely those elements that are "undifferentiated" or "underdifferentiated" by comparison with Catalan, Castilian, and Galician.

(For people following this thread, this is a trick question. It is impossible to say that a language has "differentiated" *without comparing it to some other language*. It is meaningless to say that Castilian has differentiated enough to be considered a separate language without naming the language it has differentiated from. It makes perfect sense to say that Castilian and Catalan have diverged *from one another*. It also makes sense to say that Castilian has diverged from Aragonese. But then, of course, it MUST also be true that Aragonese is has diverged from Castilian. *It is logically and rationally impossible for Castilian to have diverged from Aragonese, while Aragonese has remained similar to Castilian.* It is nonsensical to say that Aragonese has failed to differentiate without naming the language it has remained similar to.)



tenpao said:


> En la mayoría de los textos que he consultado mencionan que el dialecto navarro-aragonés se abandonó en favor del castellano o el catalán. Lo mismo con el astur-leonés que se abandonó en favor del castellano. Entiendo que a eso se refiere, que no pudo seguir diferenciándose, quedándose estancado y desapareciendo.


 
You've confused two different issues here.

That people abandoned Aragonese in favor of Castilian is a social phenomenon, not linguistic. This abandonment has nothing to do with Aragonese supposedly not continuing to "differentiate" in any meaningful linguistic sense.

Please answer these questions for me: Was Aragonese a language or a dialect back when it was the official mode of written and spoken communication of the medieval kindgom of Aragon? If it was a dialect, what concrete, meaningful, *linguistic *criteria made it a dialect? How were medieval Catalan and Castilian different from medieval Aragonese? If Aragonese used to be a language in medieval times, how and when did it become a dialect? Describe in concrete, meaningful *linguistic* terms the changes that it suffered as it went from being a language to a dialect.



tenpao said:


> Mi familia es de Asturias y opinan que el bable (el asturianu) que enseñan en la escuela es una pura invención, que nunca se habló así, que ellos hablaban castellano con algunas pequeñas diferencias. Es posible que tengan razón o tal vez estén equivocados y en otras zonas sí se hablara o se conservara mejor.


 
I have no first-hand knowledge of Asturian, and I don't know what they teach in schools. However, I know that Asturian isn't a dialect of Castilian. It evolved independently from Iberian Romance, just like the other historical langauges of Spain. It also had some influence from the pre-Roman tribes, the Astures. It began to be influenced by Castilian in the 1500's.

My suspicion is that the *Academy of the Asturian Language* is promoting an older more literary form of Asturian, which is why modern speakers perceive it to be made-up.




tenpao said:


> Porque históricamente está claro que hay cuatro lenguas diferenciadas. Es evidente. Las otras (asturianu, aragonés, aranés, etc.) no son tan evidentes.


 
How is it evident that Catalan, Castilian, and Galician are more "differentiated" than Aragonese? You keep using this word, but you haven't said what you mean by it. "Differentiated" from what?

If we say that Catalan is 100% differentiated (whatever that means), would we say that Aragonese is 20% differentiated? 50%? What test do you apply to a language to measure its degree of "differentiation"? Who carries out this kind of analysis? Is there an organization of some kind that goes around measuring the degree of "differentiation" of dialects and awarding them a certificate when they graduate to "language"? How does this work, exactly? You've said that it's "evident", so you must know.



tenpao said:


> No se trata de dar estatus especial o despreciar, es puro desconocimiento. Estamos hablando de lenguas con una impantación mínima. No se puede esperar que todo el mundo esté al tanto de todos los temas lingüisticos.


 
Exactly. This is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. The general populace doesn't understand linguistics, so they confuse common social concepts with linguistic concepts. That is precisely my point.



tenpao said:


> No, ¿quién lo considera estándar?


 
A majority of the 320,000,000 people in the world who speak Spanish. I didn't say that _I_ considered it to be standard, except that as a sociolinguist I'm aware of the general perception of the Spanish-speaking world, and _they_ consider it to be a standard.



tenpao said:


> Ningún dialecto concreto se considera estándar.


 
Who doesn't consider any concrete dialect to be standard? Societies in general or the comparatively tiny number of people who actually understand linguistic issues? As a linguist, I acknowledge linguistic definitions of these terms. However, linguistic definitions have virutally no influence on the beliefs and attitudes of the vast, vast, vast majority of humanity. Virtually everyone on earth looks to the dialect of some metropolitan center as the standard for the language they speak.

The most authoritative dictionary definitions in the world don't prevent a majority* of Spanish speakers around the world from considering the variety of Castilian spoken in central and north-central Spain as a standard. Of course, this view is fraught with inconsistencies which I fully recognize.

*With caveats, as always. Most people perceive there to be many standards forming a nested heirarchy. Most people have an implicit understanding of sociolects within their dialect and grasp that there is a standard for their own dialect. They also perceive that there is a standard for their culture, which may correlate with a metropolitan center other than the one they live in, but which their region aspires to emulate. They probaby then realize that there is an overarching standard unifying the standard of their culture with the standards of other cultures. Certain people (usually well-eduated and politically minded) may take a stance against foreign influences and may insist on not looking outside their own country for a standard. So, Argentines, for example, may disagree that Madrileño Spanish standard. However, there would be other Argentines who would disagree that view, and there would certainly be many Latin Americans from other countries who would also disagree. As with everything, it's a very complex issue with no simple answers.



tenpao said:


> Mi dialecto no tiene _estatus oficial de lengua_ (algo que no tiene sentido).


 
I agree that such a concept doesn't make any sense in *linguistic* terms. However, it makes perfect sense to a lot of people in the socio-political way they interpret the opposition between "language" and "dialect". I congratulate you for not sharing their misunderstanding, but the fact that *you* don't harbor this misunderstanding doesn't mean that plenty of other people don't. You wouldn't be a member of this forum if you didn't have a higher-than-average linguistic IQ.



tenpao said:


> Cuando la Constitución española habla de _castellano_ no se refiere a mi dialecto, sino al idioma, a la lengua española.


 
Of course. I wasn't referring to your dialect *of* Castilian as opposed to other dialects *of* Castilian. I was referring to Castilian as a historical dialect as opposed to other contemporaneous historical dialects which are generally not afforded the status of language (Aragonese).

You speak a dialect of Castilian. Your dialect of Castilian also meets one of the definitions of language. Castilian is also comprised of other dialects, and as a whole the Castilian language has the official status of state language. However, this language is also a historical dialect of Iberian Romance.

So, your language is a dialect of a language, which is itself a dialect within a family of languages, all of which are also dialects. Simple. : )


----------



## OHSU

After receiving PMs from several different members, it is obvious that many people harbor the same serious misunderstanding regarding the definition of dialect given earlier:

_



2. m. Ling. Sistema lingüístico derivado de otro, normalmente con una concreta limitación geográfica, *pero sin diferenciación suficiente frente a otros de origen común.*

Click to expand...

_ 
Apparently, this is being understood to mean: *... hablas de origen común, algunas con diferenciación suficiente, otras no. *In other words, people understand it to mean that a language is a well-differentiated system of communication while a dialect is a poorly differentiated system of communication.

That is NOT the meaning of the definition. The term "differentiated" is meaningless when referring to a language in isolation. This definition only has meaning when *comparing how similar or dissimilar two languages are one to another*. The following statements make perfect sense:

-- Spanish and French are two languages. (Because they're well differentiated *from one another.*)
-- Extremeño and Andalusian are two dialects of the same language. (Because they haven't differentiated enough *one from the other.*)

But the following are nonsensical:

-- Catalan used to be a dialect, but then it differentiated into a language.
-- I don't know if Aragonese is fully differentiated or if its still a dialect.

These last two statements beg the question -- *differentiated from what?*

If Catalan is well-differentiated, it necessarily means that there is *some other language from which Catalan has differentiated*. And if Catalan is a language, then the language you compare it to *must also be a language*, because the two of them *are different from one another*. Similarly, if Aragonese is a dialect because it is poorly differentiated, it only makes sense to say that Aragonese and some other tongue* have not differentiated from each other.* In that case, Aragonese and this other tongue *are both dialects*, dialects of the same language. So, it is completely devoid of rational meaning to conjecture whether Aragonese is a dialect, in isolation, without naming another language and making a comparison.

Is Aragonese a dialect of Castilian? Is Aragonese a dialect of Catalan? Is Aragonese a dialect of Basque (of course not)? Is Aragonese a dialect of French? Exactly what language can Aragonese be said to have failed to differentiate from?

I've had several well-intended forum members send me abundant quotes from various dictionaries, text books, and Wikipedia trying to teach me the meaning of "dialect" and "language". While I appreciate the effort to educate me, with all the respect I can muster, I have to say that it is not I who misunderstand the various definitions. It is those who believe they can make a judgment about whether Aragonese (for example) is "differentiated" without comparing it to some other language.

Maybe this analogy will help: Saying that a single tongue is a dialect *is like saying that a person with no siblings is a twin, or an unmarried man is a husband, or a childless woman is a mother.* "Dialect, "twin", "husband", and "mother" are all words that *define a relationship*. *A solitary entity can't logically have the relationship in question.* Saying that Castilian and Catalan are languages but Aragonese is a dialect is like acknowledging that John, Peter, and James all have the same parents, and agreeing that John and Peter are brothers, while insisting that James is an only child. You can quote (and misconstrue) as many definitions as you like from as many authoritative sources as you want, but it still doesn't make sense.


----------



## jmx

Curioso hilo bilingüe. Como el primer post es en castellano, escribiré en esta lengua.

No puedo comentar todo lo dicho, en realidad no lo he leído todo :-( pero hay algunos puntos que para mí están muy claros:

- En lingüística moderna, la diferencia lengua-dialecto simplemente no tiene utilidad. Todo son "variedades lingüísticas", que a veces también se llaman "dialectos". Cualquier otra diferencia se considera extra-lingüística, es decir, socio-política.

- Desgraciadamente, a los estudiantes de filología en España se les enseña una versión tirando a obsoleta de la lingüística, basada en usar textos de filólogos medio lingüistas españoles, y ocasionalmente de algún autor extranjero pasado de moda, como Coseriu.

- De acuerdo a la ideología imperante entre los filólogos españoles, la diferencia entre lengua y dialecto la da la existencia de una literatura en esa lengua. Aunque no lo digan explicitamente, es eso lo que "flota en el ambiente". Es un criterio muy natural, teniendo en cuenta que en España si quieres estudiar lingüística, has de estudiar literatura también (con pocas excepciones). Ahora bien, ese criterio es indefendible en lingüística moderna, en que una lengua se estudia por sí misma y no como mero vehículo para la literatura.

Lo dejamos aquí de momento.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Some related threads:
1. Language and dialects
2. Chinese languages and dialects
(rather about 'languages and dialects' than about 'Chinese')

Frank


----------



## OHSU

jmartins said:


> Curioso hilo bilingüe. Como el primer post es en castellano, escribiré en esta lengua.
> 
> No puedo comentar todo lo dicho, en realidad no lo he leído todo :-( pero hay algunos puntos que para mí están muy claros:
> 
> - En lingüística moderna, la diferencia lengua-dialecto simplemente no tiene utilidad. Todo son "variedades lingüísticas", que a veces también se llaman "dialectos". Cualquier otra diferencia se considera extra-lingüística, es decir, socio-política.
> 
> - Desgraciadamente, a los estudiantes de filología en España se les enseña una versión tirando a obsoleta de la lingüística, basada en usar textos de filólogos medio lingüistas españoles, y ocasionalmente de algún autor extranjero pasado de moda, como Coseriu.
> 
> - De acuerdo a la ideología imperante entre los filólogos españoles, la diferencia entre lengua y dialecto la da la existencia de una literatura en esa lengua. Aunque no lo digan explicitamente, es eso lo que "flota en el ambiente". Es un criterio muy natural, teniendo en cuenta que en España si quieres estudiar lingüística, has de estudiar literatura también (con pocas excepciones). Ahora bien, ese criterio es indefendible en lingüística moderna, en que una lengua se estudia por sí misma y no como mero vehículo para la literatura.
> 
> Lo dejamos aquí de momento.


 
Fascinating insights. I was not aware how philology is taught in Spain, so this is a revelation to me. I find your observations about the relationship between language and literature very revealing, as well.


----------



## berndf

OHSU said:


> Fascinating insights. I was not aware how philology is taught in Spain, so this is a revelation to me. I find your observations about the relationship between language and literature very revealing, as well.


This view is not uncommon and is not restricted to Iberian languages. Many people regard it as a necessary condition for a dialect to qualify as a language in its own rights to possess an independent literary tradition and an independent written form with fixed spelling rules and a codified grammar. E.g. this makes, in the eyes of many people, Dutch an independent language but Modern Low German and Swiss German dialects of German while Medieval Low German as the written standard language of the Hanseatic League qualified as a language.

In the context of this view, "differentiated" does not mean differentiated from other dialects but differentiated from a reference standard language, i.e. _Castellano _as the "principal language of government and trade in the Iberian peninsula" (Wikipedia).


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> From the standpoint of linguistics, there is no clear distinction between a "language" and a "dialect". *All languages are dialects and all dialects are languages.* There is no process by which a tongue "consolidates into a language". Likewise, there is no process by which a tongue "remains a dialect".


If you use a less than 90% measure of intelligibility Mainland Japanese, ItaloRomance/Italian(the group of dialects south of Massa Senigallia line), Langues D'Oil and Occitan(inc. Catalan and Valencian) will be classified as single languages, If we use more than 90% these languages will be divided into many languages.

Occitan was introduced by migrants from Narbonensis to S.E. Hispania during the time of Carolingian Empire later on that Occitan Idiom became Valencian and Catalan,Few of the Occitan areas were under the Moors for some time before the battle of Tours.

I think Occitans in france are envious of Catalans,Valencians and Aranese in spain.


----------



## OHSU

berndf said:


> This view is not uncommon and is not restricted to Iberian languages. Many people regard it as a necessary condition for a dialect to qualify as a language in its own rights to possess an independent literary tradition and an independent written form with fixed spelling rules and a codified grammar. E.g. this makes, in the eyes of many people, Dutch an independent language but Modern Low German and Swiss German dialects of German while Medieval Low German as the written standard language of the Hanseatic League qualified as a language.


 
Fascinating. Thanks for the info.




berndf said:


> In the context of this view, "differentiated" does not mean differentiated from other dialects but differentiated from a reference standard language, i.e. _Castellano _as the "principal language of government and trade in the Iberian peninsula" (Wikipedia).


 
Exactly. "Differentiated" still has a refernce point.

1. Two languages are differentiated *one from another.*
2. Two dialects are relatively undifferentiated *from one another*. 
3. Or a variety that is considered a dialect is relatively undifferentiated *from a variety* with a literary history that is considered a language.

In all three cases, "differentiated" has a reference point, and the language/s deemed to be "dialects" form some kind of pair with another language or dialect.

In the discussion we've been having about Aragonese, there has never been a reference language proposed. Certain posters have merely suggested that Aragonese is insufficiently "differentiated", like an organism that died _in utero._ Should it be considered a dialect of Castilian? Catalan? Galician? Of course, those who know the situation in Iberia know that it isn't a dialect of any of these, but a contemporary. They're all dialects of Iberian Romance.

But from the standpoint of linguistics, in the third case above, the one in which a dialect is undifferentiated with reference to a language, linguists would still consider the *two related varieties to be dialects*, and together they would constitute 'the language'. Those who spoke the "language" would be considered to speak the the literary dialect (or synonym), and those who spoke the "dialect" would be considered to speak the colloquial dialect (or synonym).


----------



## Epilio

Yo soy asturhablante asturiano, hablante por tanto de una lengua condenada desde hace décadas al ostracismo más infame debido a cuestiones *estrictamente políticas* y no lingüísticas. Afortunadamente hogaño goza de cierto prestigio social, aunque como se ha apuntado más arriba aún hay quien cree que lo que se enseña en las escuelas es una lengua artificial. Esto último no es correcto, porque el asturiano de la ALLA no deja de ser asturiano central (la variante más hablada), de modo que sólo a un asturiano del occidente le puede resultar más alejada de lo que él habla (en occidente se preservan algunos rasgos distintivos). Aun así pregunto; ¿qué lengua estandarizada no es hasta cierto punto artificial?.

Por otra parte el motivo de encasillar al asturiano como dialecto no ha atendido a razones científicas, sino exclusivamente políticas. Se arguye que carece de literatura, que está muy diferenciada entre sí y que además es lengua de labriegos y ganaderos. Lo primero es obviamente falso, dado que el registro escrito asturiano data del siglo XI (o incluso del siglo X si contamos la _Nodicia de Kesos_). Durante los siguientes siglos se produjo una aceptable cantidad de literatura con autores como Marrireguera o el propio Jovellanos, aunque en mi opinión aun no teniendo texto alguno seguiría sin ser un criterio lógico (¿los pueblos sin escritura no alcanzan el estatus de hablantes de lenguas, pues?). El segundo punto abstrae al asturiano como si fuera el único caso del mundo de idioma con variedad interna. Es evidente que en La Mancha hablan igual que en Burgos... Y el tercero, bueno, no merece una respuesta seria pero que conste que se ha usado, y se usa, repetidamente con un evidente afán degradante y burlón.

Sería muy útil eliminar algunos viejos y apolillados esquemas sobre la realidad lingüística española. El arcaico quórum no debe prevalecer por más tiempo.


----------



## OHSU

Ajura said:


> If you use a less than 90% measure of intelligibility Japanese, ItaloRomance/Italian(the group of dialects south of Massa Senigallia line), Langues D'Oil and Occitan(inc. Catalan and Valencian) will be classified as single languages, If we use more than 90% these languages will be divided into many languages.


 
I'm thrilled to accept whatever standard anyone proposes. But we're still left with a definition that establishes a relationship between *two entities*. We're either left with *two languages* because they're less than 90% intelligible, or *two dialects* because they're more than 90% intelligible.

I'm disputing the claim that Aragonese is a dialect in isolation, without reference to some other dialect. When someone says, "Aragonese is a dialect, but Catalan is a language," it begs several questions, including:

1. Ok, so Aragonese is a dialect _*of what language*_? Is it a dialect of Castilian? Is it a dialect of Catalan?
2. What are the _*other dialects*_ in the system to which Aragonese belongs?
3. What is the historical relationship of Aragonese to its neighboring "languages"? Is it a contemporary? Is it a dialect of a language which is, itself, the contemporary?

Of course, Galician, Asturian, Castilian, Aragonese, and Catalan are contemporaries. None of them is a dialect of any of the others, but rather, they're all on equal footing, historically, as dialects of Iberian Romance. So, if we can say that Gallego, Castilian, and Catalan are languages, then Aragonese MUST ALSO be a language. There is no way it could be otherwise.

When I say that there is no linguistic standard for differentiating a langauge from a dialect, I'm not implying that there isn't any standard for saying whether *two *varieties are *dialects*, or whether they're *two distinct languages*.

What I'm saying is that there is no standard for examining a tongue and saying, "This form of communication is a dialect, not a language."

Please consider what I said earlier:



> Saying that a single tongue is a dialect *is like saying that a person with no siblings is a twin, or an unmarried man is a husband, or a childless woman is a mother.* "Dialect, "twin", "husband", and "mother" are all words that *define a relationship*. *A solitary entity can't logically have the relationship in question.*


 
Also:



> Saying that Castilian and Catalan are languages but Aragonese is a dialect is like acknowledging that John, Peter, and James all have the same parents, and agreeing that John and Peter are brothers, while insisting that James is an only child.


----------



## berndf

OHSU said:


> In the discussion we've been having about Aragonese, there has never been a reference language proposed. Certain posters have merely suggested that Aragonese is insufficiently "differentiated", like an organism that died _in utero._ Should it be considered a dialect of Castilian? Catalan? Galician? French? Of course, those who know the situation in Iberia know that it isn't a dialect of any of these, but a contemporary. They're all dialects of Iberian Romance.


I recognize that this is a totally different issue and I agree with you that the lack of sophistication is not a meaningful linguistic definition.

But there is a point to this, namely being one of several aspects explaining the sociological (not linguistic) phenomenon of abandonment of certain dialects in favour of a standard language. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the pace of chance of living conditions has increased dramatically and with it the need of languages to find new expressions. Vernaculars are generally slower to adapt than standard languages where new expressions can disseminate through publications and electronic media. In diglossic societies speakers will tend to switch to standard language in informal, local communication too, if they feel that their local dialect does not support people's communication needs. If there is a sufficiently strong political will to keep a local language (or dialect, I don't mind how one calls it) alive, like in the case of Catalan, then there will be affords to keep its vocabulary up to date, there will be academies or institutes maintaining dictionaries.


----------



## OHSU

Epilio said:


> Yo soy asturhablante asturiano, hablante por tanto de una lengua condenada desde hace décadas al ostracismo más infame debido a cuestiones *estrictamente políticas* y no lingüísticas. Afortunadamente hogaño goza de cierto prestigio social, aunque como se ha apuntado más arriba aún hay quien cree que lo que se enseña en las escuelas es una lengua artificial. Esto último no es correcto, porque el asturiano de la ALLA no deja de ser asturiano central (la variante más hablada), de modo que sólo a un asturiano del occidente le puede resultar más alejada de lo que él habla (en occidente se preservan algunos rasgos distintivos). Aun así pregunto; ¿qué lengua estandarizada no es hasta cierto punto artificial?.
> 
> Por otra parte el motivo de encasillar al asturiano como dialecto no ha atendido a razones científicas, sino exclusivamente políticas. Se arguye que carece de literatura, que está muy diferenciada entre sí y que además es lengua de labriegos y ganaderos. Lo primero es obviamente falso, dado que el registro escrito asturiano data del siglo XI (o incluso del siglo X si contamos la _Nodicia de Kesos_). Durante los siguientes siglos se produjo una aceptable cantidad de literatura con autores como Marrireguera o el propio Jovellanos, aunque en mi opinión aun no teniendo texto alguno seguiría sin ser un criterio lógico (¿los pueblos sin escritura no alcanzan el estatus de hablantes de lenguas, pues?). El segundo punto abstrae al asturiano como si fuera el único caso del mundo de idioma con variedad interna. Es evidente que en La Mancha hablan igual que en Burgos... Y el tercero, bueno, no merece una respuesta seria pero que conste que se ha usado, y se usa, repetidamente con un evidente afán degradante y burlón.
> 
> Sería muy útil eliminar algunos viejos y apolillados esquemas sobre la realidad lingüística española. El arcaico quórum no debe prevalecer por más tiempo.


 
Desde luego, estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Este es el punto de vista que he estado intentando promover y defender, a mi manera. Lamentablemente, como extranjero no tengo experiencia propia con el asturiano, ni tanta facilidad con el castellano como tú. Muchísimas gracias por tu aportación.


----------



## OHSU

berndf said:


> I recognize that this is a totally different issue and I agree with you that the lack of sophistication is not a meaningful linguistic definition.
> 
> But there is a point to this, namely being one of several aspects explaining the sociological (not linguistic) phenomenon of abandonment of certain dialects in favour of a standard language. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the pace of chance of living conditions has increased dramatically and with it the need of languages to find new expressions. Vernaculars are generally slower to adapt than standard languages where new expressions can disseminate through publications and electronic media. In diglossic societies speakers will tend to switch to standard language in informal, local communication too, if they feel that their local dialect does not support people's communication needs. If there is a sufficiently strong political will to keep a local language (or dialect, I don't mind how one calls it) alive, like in the case of Catalan, then there will be affords to keep its vocabulary up to date, there will be academies or institutes maintaining dictionaries.


 
Of course. This is an insightful observation. I'm truly enjoying this discussion! I haven't talked much about sociolinguistics in a few years.

I'm also enjoying the curious bilingual nature of this thread, although I fear that it may alienate some non-Spanish-speaking posters.

In the beginning I chose to post in English because I was aware that my primary interlocutors also spoke English, and while my Spanish is adequate for the task, I am able to compose posts more quickly and with less effort in English. If anyone would like a translation of a Spanish post, just ask.


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> I'm thrilled to accept whatever standard anyone proposes. But we're still left with a definition that establishes a relationship between *two entities*. We're either left with *two languages* because they're less than 90% intelligible, or *two dialects* because they're more than 90% intelligible.
> 
> I'm disputing the claim that Aragonese is a dialect in isolation, without reference to some other dialect. When someone says, "Aragonese is a dialect, but Catalan is a language," it begs several questions, including:
> 
> 1. Ok, so Aragonese is a dialect _*of what language*_? Is it a dialect of Castilian? Is it a dialect of Catalan?
> 2. What are the _*other dialects*_ in the system to which Aragonese belongs?
> 3. What is the historical relationship of Aragonese to its neighboring "languages"? Is it a contemporary? Is it a dialect of a language which is, itself, the contemporary?
> 
> Of course, Galician, Asturian, Castilian, Aragonese, and Catalan are contemporaries. None of them is a dialect of any of the others, but rather, they're all on equal footing, historically, as dialects of Iberian Romance. So, if we can say that Gallego, Castilian, and Catalan are languages, then Aragonese MUST ALSO be a language. There is no way it could be otherwise.
> 
> When I say that there is no linguistic standard for differentiating a langauge from a dialect, I'm not implying that there isn't any standard for saying whether *two *varieties are *dialects*, or whether they're *two distinct languages*.
> 
> What I'm saying is that there is no standard for examining a tongue and saying, "This form of communication is a dialect, not a language."
> 
> Please consider what I said earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> Also:


Catalan is an OCCITAN dialect that arrived during reconquista.
El catalán es un dialecto OCCITAN que llegaron durante la reconquista.


----------



## ampurdan

Ajura said:


> Catalan is an OCCITAN dialect that arrived during reconquista.
> El catalán es un dialecto OCCITAN que llegaron durante la reconquista.



This is a 19th century linguistic belief.

If I'm not mistaken, there is no linguistic school which still maintains this thesis.

Catalan is a Vulgar Latin dialect, just as Spanish, Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Gallician, Portuguese, Occitan or Mozarabic languages are or were. All of them are o were different languages and not dialects of any other of them.

That is what I learned in school, if my memory serves me well.


----------



## Ajura

ampurdan said:


> This is a 19th century linguistic belief.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, there is no linguistic school which still maintains this thesis.
> 
> Catalan is a Vulgar Latin dialect, just as Spanish, Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Gallician, Portuguese, Occitan or Mozarabic languages are or were. All of them are o were different languages and not dialects of any other of them.
> 
> That is what I learned in school, if my memory serves me well.


 
Gascon is more different from Languedeocien and Provençal compared to Catalan, Occitan is a macrolanguage or family derived from GalloRomance, a branch of Vulgar latin,they have less than 90% inteligibilty,Catalan did not arrive as a separate language it was merely a dialect until it later differentiated but Gascon has drifted more because of Basque influence I was just trying to tell that Catalan is no way a Ibero-Romance dialect/language,because it is derived from Occitan...


----------



## ampurdan

Translated from this site (which high school and undergraduate students use to get free notes and since, to be taken with a grain of salt):



> *Friedrich Diez* (1794-1876) thought that Catalan was an Occitan dialect, a view that changed twenty years later.
> *Meyer-Lübke* (1861-1936) considered Catalan a Gallo-Romance after comparing it with Spanish and Occitan
> *Antoni Griera* (1887-1973) reached the same conclusion as Meyer-Lübke based on historical and cultural causes.
> *Germà Colon* (1928) concludes that the lexicon is related to Gallo-Romances' lexicon. *
> Menéndez Pidal* (1869-1968) identified an error of method of Meyer-Lübke, who only compared Catalan with Spanish, the language which was most different from the other Iberian languages.
> *Amado Alonso* (1896-1952) said French is in several respects very different from Occitan
> *Badia i Margarit* (1920) said that Catalan is a "bridge language", an Ibero-Romance from a morphosyntactical point of view, a Gallo-Romance from a lexical one and phonetically similar to the conservative languages of the Mediterranean Rim.


----------



## jmx

Regarding the classification of Romance Languages, the Wikipedia article looks pretty up-to-date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Romance_languages

My own opinion is that to classify languages that are so closely related is of very little use. They simply tend to form geographical continua where any attempted classification will be highly arbitrary.


----------



## OHSU

I was taught that Catalan was a bridge language, sharing features of both Occitan-Romance and Ibero-Romance languages.

As with all the Romance languages, the transition from Vulgar Latin to Catalan was gradual.  It is simply impossible to point to a particular time period and say, "this is when the history of Catalan started," or "this is when Catalan came into being".  Now, the specific time when people speaking Catalan (or proto-Catalan, for lack of a better term) arrived in Iberia is another question altogether.  Migrations can be dated with more confidence.  I am unaware of the specific time when Catalan (proto-Catalan) speaking people first inhabited the Iberian Peninsula.  Does anyone here know?  Did they displace previous inhabitants and their (presumably) Ibero-Romance variety?  Can anyone give a more thorough history of Catalan with some dates? I'd love to know more.


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> I was taught that Catalan was a bridge language, sharing features of both Occitan-Romance and Ibero-Romance languages.
> 
> As with all the Romance languages, the transition from Vulgar Latin to Catalan was gradual. It is simply impossible to point to a particular time period and say, "this is when the history of Catalan started," or "this is when Catalan came into being". Now, the specific time when people speaking Catalan (or proto-Catalan, for lack of a better term) arrived in Iberia is another question altogether. Migrations can be dated with more confidence. I am unaware of the specific time when Catalan (proto-Catalan) speaking people first inhabited the Iberian Peninsula. Does anyone here know? Did they displace previous inhabitants and their (presumably) Ibero-Romance variety? Can anyone give a more thorough history of Catalan with some dates? I'd love to know more.


 
The original language in that area was Mozarabic later speakers of Old Occitan displaced them, as well, that Old Occitan/Lengua Llemosina variant of those migrants became Catalan and Valencian (if you believe that valencian and catalan are not the same thing).

I think Occitan and French are isolated for a time because the Gaulish language was still spoken between their territories but I think there is more contact between Occitan and Ibero-Romance in their development.



> The earliest Continental Celtic inscriptions, dating to as early as the sixth century BC, are in Lepontic, found in Cisalpine Gaul and were written in a form of the Old Italic alphabet. Inscriptions in the Greek alphabet from the third century BC have been found in the area near the mouths of the Rhône, while later inscriptions dating to Roman Gaul are mostly in the Latin alphabet.
> Gregory of Tours wrote in the sixth century AD that some inhabitants of his region could still speak Gaulish.[_citation needed_]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language

Gascon looks more similar to Castillian in phonology of all the Occitan dialects/languages.
ex. hilha(Gascon)-hija(Castillan).

This is the animated gif of the reconquista and language change.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Linguistic_map_Southwestern_Europe-II.gif


----------



## OHSU

Well, I realize that Mozarabic was spoken in the Muslim dominated region of Iberia. I guess, when I said "that area" I was referring to the immediate south of the Pyrenees, the area from where Catalan spread southward during the reconquista. While that area was very temporarily under Moorish control, it was never Mozarabic-speaking. I guess the thing to do is start from the beginning and summarize the history of Catalonia. The question is bound to be answered along the way.

In the pre-Roman era it was inhabited first by native peoples, then it was colonized by the Greeks and later the Carthaginians. After the Second Punic War, it became part of the Roman Empire, along with the rest of Iberia. After Rome's collapse, it came under Visigothic rule, and after the disintegration of Visigothic Hispania it came under Moorish control for a brief period. Obviously, none of this history has much (if anything at all) to do with the history of the Catalan language.

Within a few short years (no later than the mid 700's) the northern part of what is now modern Catalonia was reconquered from the Moors *by the Franks*. *I suppose that that must have been when Old Occitan was introduced into the area, right?*

So, we might (somewhat arbitrarily, still) place the "birth" of proto-Catalan at the reconquest of that region by the Franks and the development of the _Marca Hispanica._ So, mid 700's to early 800's? Of course, the history and culture of Catalonia evolved throughout the middle ages, starting (again somewhat arbitrarily) with the separation of Catalonia from Frankish rule and the political alliance between Catalonia and Aragon (vaguely around the first millenium AD).

So I guess there are several important questions to consider, such as how much blending there was between Old Occitan and whatever linguistic substrate was in the area when the Franks retook it? Clearly, if there was a linguistics substrate when Old Occitan was introduced, it would have been Ibero-Romance. As I mentioned, I was taught that Catalan was a "bridge" language with some Ibero elements and some Occitan elements. (I openly admit that I may be wrong about that, and I'm open to correction.) If Catalan does have elements of both, is this because it occupied a territory between the two and forms part of a natural continuum, or because Old Occitan was superimposed over an Ibero-Romance substrate? Honestly, I have no idea.


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> Well, I realize that Mozarabic was spoken in the Muslim dominated region of Iberia. I guess, when I said "that area" I was referring to the immediate south of the Pyrenees, the area from where Catalan spread southward during the reconquista. While that area was very temporarily under Moorish control, it was never Mozarabic-speaking. I guess the thing to do is start from the beginning and summarize the history of Catalonia. The question is bound to be answered along the way.
> 
> In the pre-Roman era it was inhabited first by native peoples, then it was colonized by the Greeks and later the Carthaginians. After the Second Punic War, it became part of the Roman Empire, along with the rest of Iberia. After Rome's collapse, it came under Visigothic rule, and after the disintegration of Visigothic Hispania it came under Moorish control for a brief period. Obviously, none of this history has much (if anything at all) to do with the history of the Catalan language.
> 
> Within a few short years (no later than the mid 700's) the northern part of what is now modern Catalonia was reconquered from the Moors *by the Franks*. *I suppose that that must have been when Old Occitan was introduced into the area, right?*
> 
> So, we might (somewhat arbitrarily, still) place the "birth" of proto-Catalan at the reconquest of that region by the Franks and the development of the _Marca Hispanica._ So, mid 700's to early 800's? Of course, the history and culture of Catalonia evolved throughout the middle ages, starting (again somewhat arbitrarily) with the separation of Catalonia from Frankish rule and the political alliance between Catalonia and Aragon (vaguely around the first millenium AD).
> 
> So I guess there are several important questions to consider, such as how much blending there was between Old Occitan and whatever linguistic substrate was in the area when the Franks retook it? Clearly, if there was a linguistics substrate when Old Occitan was introduced, it would have been Ibero-Romance. As I mentioned, I was taught that Catalan was a "bridge" language with some Ibero elements and some Occitan elements. (I openly admit that I may be wrong about that, and I'm open to correction.) If Catalan does have elements of both, is this because it occupied a territory between the two and forms part of a natural continuum, or because Old Occitan was superimposed over an Ibero-Romance substrate? Honestly, I have no idea.


Actually it is not just that The Cathar refugees that escaped the _Albigensian_ Crusade of Occitania to Catalonia also had a contribution in the development of the Catalan Idiom...


----------



## OHSU

Ajura said:


> Actually it is not just that The Cathar refugees that escaped the _Albigensian_ Crusade of Occitania to Catalonia also had a contribution in the development of the Catalan Idiom...


 
Thanks for the information.  I obviously have some reading to do!


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> it was never Mozarabic-speaking. I guess the thing to do is start from the beginning and summarize the history of Catalonia.



I think Aragonese was previously spoken there.



> Thanks for the information. I obviously have some reading to do!


Ok! your welcome


----------



## ampurdan

When in 415 the Visigoths took Barcelona, the area had been under the Roman rule for *six hundred years*. I don’t know if local dialects of Vulgar Latin in Northeastern Hispania and Southern Gaul influenced one another during that time. During *three hundred years* in the Visigoth Kingdom of Hispania, which included Septimania in present day Southern France, the language of culture was still Latin and common people spoke Vulgar Latin.
  In 711 Arabs start the invasion of Visigoth Hispania. In 718-719 The Arabs take Barcelona. In 759 the Franks gained Septimania and in 801 they took Barcelona. It is important to notice that Arab rule over that area spanned *only 80 years*. This period wasn’t by any means enough to supersede a language in a territory, especially when this territory was far away from the main cities in Al-Andalus (Arabic Spain) and the Umayyad governors were known for their tolerance with Christians and their languages. So the local romance continued to be spoken by the people under the Arab rule (and in areas which remained more centuries under it, this romance would become Mozarabic) and afterwards. Take notice that many of the newcomers after the Frank conquest were descendants of local Visigoths who had flown to Septimania.

  For all the different pre-Latin substrata, it is not unlikely that areas like the ones around Maguelone-Montpellier and Barcelona had rather similar varieties of Romance language both before and after the Arab invasion.

  The first Catalan and Occitan texts (11-12th centuries) are similar (specially in vocabulary), but they show important differences. While Occitan texts keep a system of two cases for nouns and adjectives (nominative and accusative), Catalan had no case distinction any more. All this many years before the Albigensian Crusade took place.


----------



## OHSU

ampurdan said:


> It is important to notice that Arab rule over that area spanned *only 80 years*. This period wasn’t by any means enough to supersede a language in a territory, especially when this territory was far away from the main cities in Al-Andalus (Arabic Spain) and the Umayyad governors were known for their tolerance with Christians and their languages. So the local romance continued to be spoken by the people under the Arab rule (and in areas which remained more centuries under it, this romance would become Mozarabic) and afterwards.


 
Agreed. Thank you for specifying the dates. I had a vague notion of the timescale, but it looks like I was off by a few years.



ampurdan said:


> Take notice that many of the newcomers after the Frank conquest were descendants of local Visigoths who had flown to Septimania.


 
This is a very important piece of informtation I did not know.



ampurdan said:


> The first Catalan and Occitan texts (11-12th centuries) are similar (specially in vocabulary), but they show important differences. While Occitan texts keep a system of two cases for nouns and adjectives (nominative and accusative), Catalan had no case distinction any more. All this many years before the Albigensian Crusade took place.


 
Again, something I didn't know.

So, it seems that in spite of the interruption caused by the Moorish invasion and Frankish reconquista, Medieval Catalan can probably still be seen as a descendant of the local varieity of Visigothic vulgar Latin/Romance. Would you agree with that assessment?


----------



## Ajura

ampurdan said:


> When in 415 the Visigoths took Barcelona, the area had been under the Roman rule for *six hundred years*. I don’t know if local dialects of Vulgar Latin in Northeastern Hispania and Southern Gaul influenced one another during that time. During *three hundred years* in the Visigoth Kingdom of Hispania, which included Septimania in present day Southern France, the language of culture was still Latin and common people spoke Vulgar Latin.
> In 711 Arabs start the invasion of Visigoth Hispania. In 718-719 The Arabs take Barcelona. In 759 the Franks gained Septimania and in 801 they took Barcelona. It is important to notice that Arab rule over that area spanned *only 80 years*. This period wasn’t by any means enough to supersede a language in a territory, especially when this territory was far away from the main cities in Al-Andalus (Arabic Spain) and the Umayyad governors were known for their tolerance with Christians and their languages. So the local romance continued to be spoken by the people under the Arab rule (and in areas which remained more centuries under it, this romance would become Mozarabic) and afterwards. Take notice that many of the newcomers after the Frank conquest were descendants of local Visigoths who had flown to Septimania.
> 
> For all the different pre-Latin substrata, it is not unlikely that areas like the ones around Maguelone-Montpellier and Barcelona had rather similar varieties of Romance language both before and after the Arab invasion.
> 
> The first Catalan and Occitan texts (11-12th centuries) are similar (specially in vocabulary), but they show important differences. While Occitan texts keep a system of two cases for nouns and adjectives (nominative and accusative), Catalan had no case distinction any more. All this many years before the Albigensian Crusade took place.



That is what I agree but the Frankish and Albigensian crusade has a contribution to the development of the Catalan language, Catalan has an Occitan(Tolosan) strata but an NavarroAragonese strata as well...


----------



## OHSU

So, I've been reading _Historia de la lengua española_ by María del C. Candau de Cevallos, and this is something she had to say about the roots of Catalan. Speaking of the ethically mixed population living in Catalonia at the time of the Frankish reconquest from the Moors she says on page 103:



> Esta población mixta hablaba el idioma catalán, derviado del latín vulgar de N.E. de la prvincia Tarraconense. *Se ha descartado completamente la antigua tesis que consideraba al catalán como un dialecto provenzal introducido en España en al siglo VIII.* Hoy se ha llegado a delimitar perfectamente la frontera entre la _lengua de oc_ y el catalán e incluso se han buscado razones hstóricas para esta delimitación, acudiendo a la época prerromana.


 
She also emphasizes several times words to this effect (page 59):



> La lengua familiar que se oía y hablaba durante los tres siglos que comprenden la época visigótica, era, según Menéndez Pidal, *un llano romance bastante alejado del latín vulgar.* Este romance no prestaba los rasgos que serían después distintivos de la lengua castellana; por al contrario, ofrecía otros que son hoy peculiares de algunas lenguas de la Península, como el portugués o el catalán.


 
And this (pg. 68):



> *Cuando llegaron los árabes, al comienzo del siglo VIII, el latín vulgar no sólo se había transformado, sino que ya presentaba modalidades dialectaes.* La lengua hablada ofrecía rasgos muy primitivos que se encontraban en otras zonas de la Romania Occidntal...


 
And this (pg. 114)



> El habla de la España cristiana no fue uniforme. En las diversas regiones se fueron manifestando modalidades dialectales, *evoluciones más o menos progresivas del habla de la España Visigoda*, que influidas por los sustratos de las lenguas prerromanas y por las condiciones geográficas, históricas y sociales de cada región, se acentuaron hasta formar varios dalectos...


 
These insights completely contradict my earlier supposition that Catalán was introduced into Iberia by the Frankish reconquista. According to _Historia de la lengua española_, the particular linguistic elements found in Catalan had been brewing in that corner of Hispania from the beginning. Catalan wasn't _brought_ to Iberia, but is native like all the other Iberian romance languages.

I'm happy to admit that I was wrong on this point.

They also present an alternative to the original post that gave rise to this thread, in which it is suggested that "Iberian Romance" is an inappropriate term for the variety of Vulgar Latin spoken in Visigoth Hispania, and that the various historical languages/dialects didn't really begin diverging until after the Muslim invasion and the formation of the sundry Christian Kingdoms.

According to _Historia de la lengua española_, it is perfectly appropriate to think of Visigoth Hispania as speaking Iberian Romance, and it is equally reasonable to consider the origin of the historical languages/dialects as having begun, with their distincitve features already evident, before the Muslim invasion. Obviously, the Muslim invasion and occupation altered the course of the evolution of these languages, but it didn't mark the beginning, and it wasn't the driving force.


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> So, I've been reading _Historia de la lengua española_ by María del C. Candau de Cevallos, and this is something she had to say about the roots of Catalan. Speaking of the ethically mixed population living in Catalonia at the time of the Frankish reconquest from the Moors she says on page 103:
> 
> 
> 
> She also emphasizes several times words to this effect (page 59):
> 
> 
> 
> And this (pg. 68):
> 
> 
> 
> And this (pg. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> These insights completely contradict my earlier supposition that Catalán was introduced into Iberia by the Frankish reconquista. According to _Historia de la lengua española_, the particular linguistic elements found in Catalan had been brewing in that corner of Hispania from the beginning. Catalan wasn't _brought_ to Iberia, but is native like all the other Iberian romance languages.
> 
> I'm happy to admit that I was wrong on this point.
> 
> They also present an alternative to the original post that gave rise to this thread, in which it is suggested that "Iberian Romance" is an inappropriate term for the variety of Vulgar Latin spoken in Visigoth Hispania, and that the various historical languages/dialects didn't really begin diverging until after the Muslim invasion and the formation of the sundry Christian Kingdoms.
> 
> According to _Historia de la lengua española_, it is perfectly appropriate to think of Visigoth Hispania as speaking Iberian Romance, and it is equally reasonable to consider the origin of the historical languages/dialects as having begun, with their distincitve features already evident, before the Muslim invasion. Obviously, the Muslim invasion and occupation altered the course of the evolution of these languages, but it didn't mark the beginning, and it wasn't the driving force.


That is the NavarroAragonese element of catalan but the Occitan element(predominant element) was bought in during the later migrations from southern france.


----------



## OHSU

Ajura said:


> That is the NavarroAragonese element of catalan but the Occitan element(predominant element) was bought in during the later migrations from southern france.


 
Could you give some examples of Occitan elements and how we know that they arrived in later migrations, rather than being present in nascient proto-Catalan?

I don't want to sound as if I'm debating the matter with you, because I honestly don't know one way or the other. I would just like to know what evidence you base your comments on.


----------



## berndf

ampurdan said:


> In 759 the Franks gained Septimania and in 801 they took Barcelona. It is important to notice that Arab rule over that area spanned *only 80 years*. This period wasn’t by any means enough to supersede a language in a territory, especially when this territory was far away from the main cities in Al-Andalus (Arabic Spain) and the Umayyad governors were known for their tolerance with Christians and their languages. So the local romance continued to be spoken by the people under the Arab rule (and in areas which remained more centuries under it, this romance would become Mozarabic) and afterwards. Take notice that many of the newcomers after the Frank conquest were descendants of local Visigoths who had flown to Septimania.


But the Francs gave generous land grants to Gaulish settlers to repopulated the war-ravaged Gothic (i.e. Septimania) and Spanish Marches. I am not an expert on the history of that region but couldn't these Gaulish settlers have brought Occitan (or rather its pre-cursor) to these Marches and have replaced older Visigothic-Romance dialects?
 
I am not saying I advocate this theory. I am just interested to know how credible it is. After all, the competing theory – namely that Catalan is more closely related to Occitan/Provencal than to (most?) other Ibero-Romance languages because in Roman times the dialect of the area was linked to Ligurian and Provencal dialects by sea rather than separated by the mountains – is at least equally plausible.


----------



## relativamente

Just an element to compare, the colour names


English white
Spanish blanco 
Catalan blanc 
French blanc 
Occitan blanch 
Portuguese branco


English blue
Spanish azul
Italian azzurro, blu
Catalan blau
French bleu
German blau
Occitan blau
Portuguese azul

English yellow
Spanish amarillo
Catalan grog
French jaune
Occitan jaune
Portuguese amarelo

English red
Spanish rojo, bermejo
French rouge vermeil
Catalan roig vermell
Occitan ros
Portuguese vermelho

English green
Spanish verde
Catalan verd
French vert
Occitan verd
Portuguese verde

English black
Spanish negro
Catalan negre
French noir
Occitan nier
Portuguese preto

Is specially important the blau, both in Occitan and Catalan and also in German. Not in any other Iberian language. In Latin the related word is flavus that meant yellow not blue. Flavius Roman family name, fair colour person


----------



## Ajura

relativamente said:


> Just an element to compare, the colour names
> 
> 
> English white
> Spanish blanco
> Catalan blanc
> French blanc
> Occitan blanch
> Portuguese branco
> 
> 
> English blue
> Spanish azul
> Italian azzurro, blu
> Catalan blau
> French bleu
> German blau
> Occitan blau
> Portuguese azul
> 
> English yellow
> Spanish amarillo
> Catalan grog
> French jaune
> Occitan jaune
> Portuguese amarelo
> 
> English red
> Spanish rojo, bermejo
> French rouge vermeil
> Catalan roig vermell
> Occitan ros
> Portuguese vermelho
> 
> English green
> Spanish verde
> Catalan verd
> French vert
> Occitan verd
> Portuguese verde
> 
> English black
> Spanish negro
> Catalan negre
> French noir
> Occitan nier
> Portuguese preto
> 
> Is specially important the blau, both in Occitan and Catalan and also in German. Not in any other Iberian language. In Latin the related word is flavus that meant yellow not blue. Flavius Roman family name, fair colour person


Languedeocien is the dialect or occitan language near Roselho/rousillion

Languedeocien(occitan)
Totas las personas naisson liuras e egalas en dignitat e en drech. Son dotadas de rason e de consciéncia e lor cal agir entre elas amb un esperit de frairesa.
Catalan
Tots els éssers humans neixen lliures i iguals en dignitat i en drets. Són dotats de raó i de consciència, i han de comportar-se fraternalment els uns amb els altres.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language#cite_note-omniglot-17


----------



## CapnPrep

Ajura said:


> Languedeocien is the dialect or occitan language near Roselho/rousillion


No, Rousillonnais is northern Catalan, although it has incorporated features from Languedocien, spoken immediately to the north and west. Or, perhaps there has always been a dialect continuum here and the statement by M. del C. C. de C. ("Hoy se ha llegado a delimitar perfectamente la frontera entre la _lengua de oc_ y el catalán.") is an exaggeration. In any case, comparing two modern translations of the UDHR does not reveal much about the historical relationship between the languages of this region. We would need to compare texts from both sides of the supposed frontier from before and after (say) the Cathar crusades, and look at not only isolated lexical borrowings but also systematic grammatical changes as a result of contact/diglossia. And I don't think this can be done by quoting from Wikipedia.


----------



## OHSU

CapnPrep said:


> We would need to compare texts from both sides of the supposed frontier from before and after (say) the Cathar crusades, and look at not only isolated lexical borrowings but also systematic grammatical changes as a result of contact/diglossia.


 
I agree. Merely pointing out similarities and differences between languages in their modern form doesn't tell us anything about the historical context. Were the seeds of these similarities/differences present in the nascient form of Catalan, or were they imported at a later time? Citing modern examples doesn't answer these questions.



CapnPrep said:


> And I don't think this can be done by quoting from Wikipedia.


 
Unless someone finds a Wikipedia article containing texts from both sides of the supposed frontier from before and after the Cathar crusades. That would certainly be interesting.


----------



## Favara

relativamente said:


> English blue
> Spanish azul
> Italian azzurro, blu
> Catalan blau
> French bleu
> German blau
> Occitan blau
> Portuguese azul


I just wanted to note that there's also _atzur_ in Catalan, but it's almost extinct (it's about as used as _azure_ is in English).

Oh, and BTW, _yellow_ = _gro*c*_. _Gro*g*_ is that thing the pirates drunk.


----------



## ampurdan

> I am not saying I advocate this theory. I am just interested to know how credible it is. After all, the competing theory – namely that Catalan is more closely related to Occitan/Provencal than to (most?) other Ibero-Romance languages because in Roman times the dialect of the area was linked to Ligurian and Provencal dialects by sea rather than separated by the mountains – is at least equally plausible.


 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

According to this source, the variety of Vulgar Latin which soldiers and merchants introduced into the coastal regions of Hispania was more vulgar and evolved than that which reached the inland regions of Hispania (where government officials brought a more cultivated and archaic language).

Examples:

_Fear
_Metus (Archaic Latin) > miedo (Spanish), medo (Portuguese)
Pavor (Vulgar Latin) > por (Catalan), por (Occitan), peur (French), paura (Italian)

_To boil
_Fervere (AL) > hervir (Sp.), ferver (Port.).
Bullire (VL) > bullir (Cat.), bulhir (Occ.), boullir (Fr.), bollire (It.).

_To eat
_Comedere (AL) > comer (Sp.), comer (Port.).
Manducare (VL) > menjar (Cat.), mangar (Occ.), manger (Fr.), mangiare (It.).

Etc. 

Blau/blue/blu have a common Germanic origin; "flavus" is a Latin word of an akin origin, but it did not make it into romances (and it means yellow, as already stated). Latin had other words for "blue" (caeruleus, for instance).
Azul/azure/azzurro/azur have a common Sanskrit origin, via Arabic and Spanish.



Ajura said:


> That is the NavarroAragonese element of catalan but the Occitan element(predominant element) was bought in during the later migrations from southern france.



I find it a little strange to say that Catalan has a Navarro-Aragonese element. They have a common "ancestor" in Hispanic Vulgar Latin and they influenced each other as adstrats like in:

Aragonese: bonico -> Catalan: bonic



berndf said:


> But the Francs gave generous land grants to Gaulish settlers to repopulated the war-ravaged Gothic (i.e. Septimania) and Spanish Marches. I am not an expert on the history of that region but couldn't these Gaulish settlers have brought Occitan (or rather its pre-cursor) to these Marches and have replaced older Visigothic-Romance dialects?



I wonder to what extent it makes sense to talk about Gaulish/Frankish and Iberian/Hispanic/Visigothic when we are talking about the common people of that era and not the lords with a clear tribal descent.

However, Charles the Great (aka Charlemagne) and his son Louis gave land in "aprisio" to "Hispani" both in Septimania and in that part of the Marca Hispanica which is present-day Catalonia (here you can find the transcription of a document of land in Béziers given to Hispani). 



> So, it seems that in spite of the interruption caused by the Moorish invasion and Frankish reconquista, Medieval Catalan can probably still be seen as a descendant of the local varieity of Visigothic vulgar Latin/Romance. Would you agree with that assessment?



I think that romances spoken in the Eastern Counties of the Marca Hispanica, generally speaking, were much more similar to those spoken in former Septimania than those spoken in the Western Counties and the Kingdom of Navarre (which would become Navarro-aragonese), Burgos (Spanish), León (Astur-Leonese) or Santiago (Galician-Portuguese). I'm not sure about those in northern France (les langues d'Oïl).

I also think that time and different Castillian and Parisian influences have increased differences between Catalan and Occitan.

I don't think it makes much sense to classify Western Romances into two or three separate groups, I'm not a linguist though.


----------



## Frank06

relativamente said:


> Just an element to compare, the colour names
> English white
> Spanish blanco
> Catalan blanc
> French blanc
> Occitan blanch
> Portuguese branco


Wouldn't it be more useful for this discussion to compare grammatical issues, rather than merely lexical ones?
Just wondering.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## OHSU

ampurdan said:


> I don't think it makes much sense to classify Western Romances into two or three separate groups.


 
I agree.  There are actually some linguists who propose placing Catalan, Gascon, and High Aragonese into their own category and calling it something like "Pyreneese Romance".

Considering that at one point in the distant past the varieites of Western Romance formed a fairly smooth gradient, any categorization we formulate will always have a degree of arbitrariness.


----------



## berndf

ampurdan said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
> 
> According to this source, the variety of Vulgar Latin which *soldiers and merchants introduced into the coastal regions of Hispania*...


Yes, that is what I meant by "linked by sea".


ampurdan said:


> I wonder to what extent it makes sense to talk about Gaulish/Frankish and Iberian/Hispanic/Visigothic when we are talking about the common people of that era and not the lords with a clear tribal descent.


I remember having read about popular animosities between "Gauls" and "Goths" in Septimania which were not restricted to the nobility.



ampurdan said:


> However, Charles the Great (aka Charlemagne) and his son Louis gave land in "aprisio" to "Hispani" both in Septimania and in that part of the Marca Hispanica which is present-day Catalonia (here you can find the transcription of a document of land in Béziers given to Hispani).


To my knowledge also to Gaulish settlers but I might be wrong; I am not an expert on the history of that region.


----------



## relativamente

Este hilo tal como se titula puede abarcar un contenido muy amplio y podríamos estar mucho tiempo hablando de los múltiples aspectos de las lenguas ibéricas. 
Pero si nos ceñimos al primer post, parece que se explaya en consideraciones de tipo histórico más que linguístico, aunque por cierto muy interesantes.Pero luego el hilo ha derivado a otros temas como la intensidad de la posible influencia del Occitano en el Catalán.
Volviendo un poco al principio, y reconociendo que soy bastante ignorante del tema todavía puedo aportar alguna opinión, quizás.
Es cierto que la idea de España como entidad política como concepto histórico, cultural y sociopolítico desde muy antiguo.
Cabe recordar aquí la figura de San Isidoro de Sevilla que escribió su "loor de Espanna". Por cierto este Santo ha sido declarado patrono de Internet por la Iglesia, y si este foro tuviera que tener un patrón sin duda el que más se lo merecería sería él porque su obra magna se titula "las etimologías"
Aunque la idea de colaboración de los reinos cristianos con la finalidad de hacer retroceder a los principados y reinos musulmanes no siempre se mantuvo con coherencia pues hubo muchas guerras y rencillas entre ellos.Todo esto se tendría que matizar mucho más pero no sé si esto es materia de este foro.


----------



## Hulalessar

Making a distinction between Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Romance is I feel more than anything motivated by geography and cannot really be sustained on purely linguistic grounds. Catalan, included in the former, and Occitan, included in the latter, are more like each other, than either is respectively to Spanish or French, even if it is not the case, as some hold, that Catalan and Occitan were once one language.

Further, describing Catalan as intermediate between Spanish and French, though to an extent justified if we are to recognise that rather than there being a sharp distinction between "languages" there is only a continuum of "dialects", does tend to suggest that Catalan is a hybrid of Spanish and French, when it is a separate development. That separate development took place north and south of the Pyrenees in an area somewhat smaller than the area in which Catalan is now spoken. Once developed it expanded not only southwards, but also eastwards across the sea with the migration of Catalan speaking peoples when those areas were "reconquered". Some areas in which Catalan is now spoken have been bilingual since Catalan speakers arrived and notwithstanding later immigration of Spanish speakers.

Despite the idea that there is only a continuum of dialects, as you cross Spain from, say La Coruña to, say, Castellón, there is nevertheless something of a sharp distinction between Galician and Spanish in the east and Spanish and Catalan in the west. However, the central area of Spain that excludes the Galician, Catalan and Basque speaking areas is more linguistically homogeneous. There are no sharp linguistics boundaries as you travel from, say, Santander to, say, Málaga though the speech of the former differs somewhat from the speech of the latter.

Whether the language spoken in this central zone, and in particular the standard form, should be called Spanish or Castilian, is a thorny question. Outside Spanish speaking countries it is almost always referred to as "Spanish" (or the equivalent in non-English speaking countries). In the Spanish speaking parts of the Americas it is officially designated "español" in some countries and "castellano" in others. Within Spain in certain situations one may use "castellano" to avoid offending the sensibilities of someone whose mother tongue is not Spanish, only to be informed that the matter is of no importance since the person does not consider himself to be Spanish at all! Whilst ideally the word "castellano" should be restricted to the form of Spanish spoken in the areas actually called "Castilla", quite apart from the fact that in some of those areas (for example in Zamora) there are those whose mother tongue is not Spanish, you then run into the problem that you may offend those who whose mother tongue is not Spanish, but nevertheless regard themselves as Spanish, if you refer to the language spoken in those parts of the central zone not in area called "Castilla" as Spanish! Finally, if you decline to call the form of Spanish you speak "castellano" on the grounds that you do not live in an area called "Castilla", then we need to ask what Spanish speakers outside Spain are to call the language they speak since they live neither in Spain nor Castilla.


----------



## OHSU

Hulalessar said:


> Despite the idea that there is only a continuum of dialects...


 
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and well-spoken post. I agree with everything you've said with one small clarification. I believe that when people refer to a "continuum of dialects" they are not referring to the modern situation where many minority dialects have completely died out and been replaced by languages of influence, but rather the historical situation centuries and centuries ago. I, personally, have mostly used that concept to refer to the dialects of Visigoth Hispania.

With regard to your closing comments, there is a very interesting thread here:  http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1649609


----------



## jmx

OHSU said:


> I believe that when people refer to a "continuum of dialects" they are not referring to the modern situation where many minority dialects have completely died out and been replaced by languages of influence, but rather the historical situation centuries and centuries ago.





Hulalessar said:


> Despite the idea that there is only a continuum of dialects, as you cross Spain from, say La Coruña to, say, Castellón, there is nevertheless something of a sharp distinction between Galician and Spanish in the east and Spanish and Catalan in the west.


Dialect continua are not necessarily a thing of the past, in fact in the Iberian Peninsula a continuum still exists or at least existed until very recently. But continua needn't be gradual in all possible paths: The Romance continuum between Portugal and France can only be felt through a certain path, crossing Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, and then northern Aragon and Catalonia. The linguistic border between Portuguese and Spanish is sharp south of Zamora province, and the one between Catalan and Spanish is sharp south of Huesca province; this is due to the peculiar history of the Peninsula in the middle ages.


----------



## Ajura

Hulalessar said:


> Making a distinction between Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Romance is I feel more than anything motivated by geography and cannot really be sustained on purely linguistic grounds. Catalan, included in the former, and Occitan, included in the latter, are more like each other, than either is respectively to Spanish or French, even if it is not the case, as some hold, that Catalan and Occitan were once one language.
> 
> Further, describing Catalan as intermediate between Spanish and French, though to an extent justified if we are to recognise that rather than there being a sharp distinction between "languages" there is only a continuum of "dialects", does tend to suggest that Catalan is a hybrid of Spanish and French, when it is a separate development. That separate development took place north and south of the Pyrenees in an area somewhat smaller than the area in which Catalan is now spoken. Once developed it expanded not only southwards, but also eastwards across the sea with the migration of Catalan speaking peoples when those areas were "reconquered". Some areas in which Catalan is now spoken have been bilingual since Catalan speakers arrived and notwithstanding later immigration of Spanish speakers.
> 
> Despite the idea that there is only a continuum of dialects, as you cross Spain from, say La Coruña to, say, Castellón, there is nevertheless something of a sharp distinction between Galician and Spanish in the east and Spanish and Catalan in the west. However, the central area of Spain that excludes the Galician, Catalan and Basque speaking areas is more linguistically homogeneous. There are no sharp linguistics boundaries as you travel from, say, Santander to, say, Málaga though the speech of the former differs somewhat from the speech of the latter.
> 
> Whether the language spoken in this central zone, and in particular the standard form, should be called Spanish or Castilian, is a thorny question. Outside Spanish speaking countries it is almost always referred to as "Spanish" (or the equivalent in non-English speaking countries). In the Spanish speaking parts of the Americas it is officially designated "español" in some countries and "castellano" in others. Within Spain in certain situations one may use "castellano" to avoid offending the sensibilities of someone whose mother tongue is not Spanish, only to be informed that the matter is of no importance since the person does not consider himself to be Spanish at all! Whilst ideally the word "castellano" should be restricted to the form of Spanish spoken in the areas actually called "Castilla", quite apart from the fact that in some of those areas (for example in Zamora) there are those whose mother tongue is not Spanish, you then run into the problem that you may offend those who whose mother tongue is not Spanish, but nevertheless regard themselves as Spanish, if you refer to the language spoken in those parts of the central zone not in area called "Castilla" as Spanish! Finally, if you decline to call the form of Spanish you speak "castellano" on the grounds that you do not live in an area called "Castilla", then we need to ask what Spanish speakers outside Spain are to call the language they speak since they live neither in Spain nor Castilla.


I am pointing out that catalan originated from rousillion and mixed with the original vulgar latin or Mozarabic of SE Spain.


----------



## CapnPrep

Ajura said:


> I am pointing out that catalan originated from rousillion and mixed with the original vulgar latin or Mozarabic of SE Spain.


I think we have all understood your claim, which you have asserted several times with slightly varying details but with no evidence or references.

So far the only historical linguistic evidence that anyone has mentioned (ampurdan in #33) is the loss of case, which happened earlier in Catalan than in Occitan. So we know that the languages were distinct by the late 12th century, the time of the earliest complete Catalan text (Homilies of Orgunyà).

However, this does not mean that Catalan and Occitan were _never_ the same language, which is the other extreme viewpoint that has been asserted in this thread, also with no evidence. Candau de Cevallos (cited by OHSU in #36) says that people were speaking Catalan in the 8th century. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous, or at best, uninterpretable?


----------



## ampurdan

CapnPrep said:


> However, this does not mean that Catalan and Occitan were _never_ the same language, which is the other extreme viewpoint that has been asserted in this thread, also with no evidence. Candau de Cevallos (cited by OHSU in #36) says that people were speaking Catalan in the 8th century. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous, or at best, uninterpretable?



I haven't read that book and I may be wrong, but from what OHSU has quoted, it does not seem to me that she's saying that "people were speaking Catalan in the 8th century" (although I see why you say it), but that "cuando llegaron los árabes, al comienzo del siglo VIII, el latín vulgar no sólo se había transformado, sino que ya presentaba modalidades dialectaes" (when Arabs arrived at the beginning of the 8th century, Vulgar Latin had not just changed, but it presented dialectal variants").

Anyway, I'd love to see what evidences she has of such characteristic dialectal variants in the North-East of the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century CE or before and, if possible, compare them to those in neighboring lands.


----------



## OHSU

CapnPrep said:


> However, this does not mean that Catalan and Occitan were _never_ the same language, which is the other extreme viewpoint that has been asserted in this thread, also with no evidence. Candau de Cevallos (cited by OHSU in #36) says that people were speaking Catalan in the 8th century. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous, or at best, uninterpretable?


 
I agree with you that it would be ridiculous to suggest that Catalan and Occitan were _never_ the same language. That is a very extreme viewpoint. However, to be fair to Candau de Cevallos, to my knowledge she has never made that statement. She has only said that Catalan (as well as the other historical languages of the region) presented dialectal variation earlier than is sometimes asserted. She makes no claim about Catalan and Occitan not originating from a common source.

I also agree with you that it would be unreasonable to suggest that something closely approximating _modern Catalan_ was spoken in the 8th century. I don't believe she makes that claim, either. It seems to me that her argument is that the progenitor dialect that gave rise to modern Catalan had already begun diverging from dialects in neigboring geographical zones before the end of the Visigoth period, with some of the distinctive features of Catalan already observable. In other words, the Romance of Visigoth Hispania wasn't uniform, and the seeds of the modern languages were evident even at that early date.

I believe her point is that since some of the distinctive features of Catalan were evident early on, claims that Catalan is a more recent immigrant from southern France (or that a majority of its features are) are exaggerated.

Her claims may certainly be incorrect, and at this time I have no reason to agree with her. However, wrong or right, I don't see this as a particularly extreme viewpoint.



ampurdan said:


> Anyway, I'd love to see what evidences she has of such characteristic dialectal variants in the North-East of the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century CE or before and, if possible, compare them to those in neighboring lands.


 
I'd love to see that evidence, too. Unfortunately, Candau de Cevallos doesn't go into that kind of detail. Her book reads like a history book more than like a linguistics text. She does cite the works from which she supposedly obtained her information, though. Let me look into it and see if I can find the sources for her claims about Catalan.


----------



## ampurdan

I've found this:



> En realidad, las primeras muestras de rasgos propios del catalán              son del siglo IX, aun escasas pero ya bien características, en medio              de textos en latín. Por ejemplo: la forma _puio,              _del latín clásico _ podium, _que aparece en el              año 857              y que presenta              reducción condicionada de la _o _ breve latina, más la palatalización del grupo  _dy _latín; la forma             _(in pago) Geronnense, _ en latín clásico _Gerundense,              _que figura en un precepto de              Carlomagno del año 881 y que nos ilustra del paso _ -nd- _ >  _-nn- _(con reducción posterior a              _n), _evolución que también es bien característica del              catalán, no compartida ni por el castellano ni por el occitano              (excepto en gascón); el             nombre _palomera, _del latín              _palumbaria, _que aparece en el acta de consagración de la catedral              de Urgell (de la segunda mitad del siglo IX), donde encontramos la              evolución _-aria> -era _ y _-mb- _ >  _m-,             _que también son rasgos típicos del              catalán, no compartidos por el occitano común. También aparecen en              los documentos latinos de este periodo preliterario algunas palabras              que son típicas del catalán como _aragalius,             _actualmente _aragall, xaragall             _'badén, arroyada' (año              932), _cavagus, _act.              _càv__ec _'azadón' (año 977),              _coma _'nava, loma' (año 913),             _kastagnarios et nogarios _ acto _castanyers i noguers             _'castaños y nogales' (año  875).1
> 
> Estos              datos lingüísticos, que ampliará mi compañero Rasico, demuestran              que el catalán se formó precisamente en su área constitutiva              actual, y que no es una proyección de las hablas de la Galia que se              hubiese producido con motivo de la reconquista carolingia como a              veces se ha dicho. En todo caso, la semejanza del catalán con el              occitano se debe al latín vulgar del cual provienen estas lenguas,              que indica una relación mediterránea, amplia y antigua, que no se              interrumpió en el periodo visigótico.


Here.


----------



## OHSU

ampurdan said:


> I've found this:
> Here.


 
Great find!


----------



## Ajura

OHSU said:


> I agree with you that it would be ridiculous to assert that Catalan and Occitan were _never_ the same language. That is a very extreme viewpoint. However, to be fair to Candau de Cevallos, to my knowledge she has never made that statement. She has only said that Catalan (as well as the other historical languages of the region) presented dialectal variation several centuries earlier than most people believe. She makes no claim about Catalan and Occitan not originating from a common source.
> 
> I also agree with you that it would be unreasonable to suggest that anything closely resembling _modern Catalan_ was spoken in the 8th century. I don't believe she makes that claim, either. It seems to me that her argument is that the progenitor dialect that gave rise to modern Catalan had already begun diverging from dialects in neigboring geographical zones before the end of the Visigoth period, with some of the distinctive features of Catalan already observable. In other words, the Romance of Visigoth Hispania wasn't uniform, and the seeds of the modern languages were evident even at that early date.
> 
> I believe her point is that since some of the distinctive features of Catalan were evident early on, claims that Catalan is a more recent immigrant from southern France (or that a majority of its features are) are exaggerated.
> 
> Her claims may certainly be incorrect, and at this time I have no reason to agree with her. However, wrong or right, I don't see this as a particularly extreme viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see that evidence, too. Unfortunately, Candau de Cevallos doesn't go into that kind of detail. Her book reads like a history book more than like a linguistics text. She does cite the works from which she supposedly obtained her information, though. Let me look into it and see if I can find the sources for her claims about Catalan.


Actually, It is only the Lengadocià that is closely related to Catalan which remained contact, the relationship is similar to that of Northern Portuguese and Galician,other Occitan dialects are far from the Catalan and Gascon which mixes with Catalan and Aragonese to form Ribagorçan.

Southern Lengadocià,Catalan and Gascon are classified as _Aquitanopirenenc _under Occitan by some linguists.


----------



## CapnPrep

Thanks, ampurdan, for this informative link. It sounds like Philip Rasico's work would be a good place to look next.

To play the devil's advocate once again (I know that the scholarly discussion in this field is often tainted by national/regional bias, and since I happen to live in France, I am necessarily blinded by nostalgia for the lost Golden Age when the entire western hemisphere spoke exclusively Gallo-Romance dialects ): Aren't Moran's examples still _slightly_ too late to totally invalidate the Reconquista hypothesis? Changes in pronunciation can happen within one generation, and they could be reflected in such written examples pretty much immediately (since we're talking about spontaneous spelling errors in Latin texts, or isolated citations of vernacular words, as opposed to systematic orthographic changes).

 In any case, I cannot agree with Moran's final statement: "la semejanza del catalán con el              occitano se debe al latín vulgar del cual provienen estas lenguas". A common origin is in no way sufficient to explain this similarity, especially if the two languages were already diverging in the 9th century (and perhaps even earlier). The further back one succeeds in pushing the shared origin, the more one has to attribute to the effects of continued contact in later periods. And here, the influence of Occitan on Catalan has indeed been much stronger than in the other direction.


----------



## OHSU

CapnPrep said:


> ... since I happen to live in France, I am necessarily blinded by nostalgia for the lost Golden Age when the entire western hemisphere spoke exclusively Gallo-Romance dialects ...


 
I am unfamiliar with this Golden Age of Gallo-Romance dialects.  Could you elaborate on this statement a bit?


----------



## Hulalessar

Whilst the Saussure quote on the web page referred to above by ampurdan refers to the abundance of documentation available to students of the Romance languages, the problem is the lack of documents from the Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages. Whatever people were speaking, most of the texts are Latin. Whether a text not wholly conforming to the written standards of Late Latin is Late Latin with a regional flavour, an attempt to write Latin by someone not wholly conversant with it and influenced by his vernacular, or an attempt to reproduce the vernacular, is not always clear. It is not even clear at what stage people started to think of themselves as not speaking Latin.

Any surviving documents that are not in what a schoolboy would recognise as Latin, apart from not being that numerous, tend to be short. The 8th century "indovinello veronese", offered by some as the first instance of Italian, only consists of 14 words and there is nothing further for a couple of centuries. From memory, the earliest instances of anything that can be called Catalan or Occitan are equally scanty. I cannot help feeling that there is a tendency to over-extrapolate from the evidence.

With this lack of evidence, is it possible to say whether or not Catalan and Occitan had an immediate common ancestor which is something different from Vulgar Latin? Whatever their immediate common source, can we be certain whether the differences (or perhaps we should say similarities) between Catalan and Occitan today are the result of (a) narrow divergence (b) a wider divergence followed by convergence (c) parallel development (d) some permutation of (a), (b) and (c)? I expect the answer is a bit of entanglement, particularly when we bear in mind that travel between the two areas where the languages are spoken has not been difficult since Latin was first introduced into them.


----------



## CapnPrep

Hulalessar, I share your skepticism, and I agree (obviously) that the modern languages are the result of a complex, entangled evolution. But your earlier message was a bit more categorical:


Hulalessar said:


> […] even if it is not the case, as some hold, that Catalan and Occitan were once one language.


Neither this nor the opposing position can be taken as the null hypothesis (in my opinion). In the absence of sufficient evidence, we just don't know.


----------



## Ajura

Mind you It is only Lengadocian and Gascon are related closely to Catalan not Provençau and the other Eastern Occitan dialects....


----------



## OHSU

I agree that in the absence of evidence (and the likelihood that none will be forthcoming), certain propositions are strictly unfalsifiable. Nevertheless, I don't feel that various assumptions are terribly risky.

Although early evidence for a given dialect may be restricted to scant documents consisting of only a few words, it is not reasonable to assume that the only words in the whole dialect demonstrating those evolutionary changes were the ones appearing in the surviving documents. On the contrary, everything we know about linguistic evolution tells us that phonological changes occur across the board, in most instances of a particular phonological sequence. So, if a document demonstrates something like a stem change, palatalization, diphthongization, or some other well-understood phonological phenomenon -- even if the document only contains a hand full of words -- there is no reason to believe that the phenomenon wasn't general, at least in the dialect/sociolect of the individual who wrote the document. Similarly, depending on the nature of the text, certain deductions can be made about morphology.

It is very difficult and risky to make assumptions about the lexicon of a dialect whose existence is only established by a few words, but in certain instances a great deal can be deduced about other aspects.

Of course, this discussion is purely theoretical. With specific reference to Catalan and the other Iberian languages, I am not sure what the evidence is. For the period we're discussing here, which I suppose is the late Visigoth era, it may be wholly inadequate to make any sound inferences. I confess that I don't know. (Anyone following this thread can see that my knowledge has changed from post to post. I'm obviously not an expert in the details of Romance philology.)


----------



## XiaoRoel

En este hilo, como ya se ha apuntado, hay una mezcla caótica de datos de todo tipo. Así es imposible llevar un debate ordenado. Intentaré centrar la discusión
1. Un acuerdo terminológico: usar  estas palabras neutras y precisas: diacronía, sincronía y derivados; variedades lingüísticas (diatópicas y diastráticas) e idiolecto; lengua y habla; habls de transición; sustrato, adstrato, superestrato; evolución tradicional, semicultismo, cultismo; latín vulgar hispánico; iberismos, vasquismos y aquitanismos; celtismos; germanismos suevos y visigóticos; latín notarial leonés; macrodiasistemas diasistemas, sistemas lingüísticos y lenguas; lenguas nacionales, lenguas propias; lenguas advenidas; biingüismo y digosia; lenguas normativizadas (con zonas dialectales marcables por isoglosas e isosemias) y lenguas en estado de normativización (con variedades diatópicas, o dialectos en la parte que esté normativizada)y lenguas o variedades lingüísticas sin normalizar; registro vulgar/coloquial/rural, estándar/literario o culto/académico; variedades capitalinas, ciudadanas, capitalino-provincianas, de pueblo/aldea; lenguaje técnico/jerga de oficio, lenguaje marginal/lumpen, lenguaje informal/juvenil; argot. 
Seguro que habrá discusiones sobre e valor de cada término. Al que lo demande presentaré el¡jemplos de uso.
2. La fecha en que el latín vulgar de Hispania (diatópica y diastráticamente diferenciado) comenzó a convertirse en otra cosa (¿ss. III-V? ¿s. VIII?). 
3. La acción del sustrato prerromano en el proceso y en la deriva posterior de los diferentes grupos lingüísticos.
4. La geografía lingüística en el 711.
5. Latín notarial leonés, latín jurídico y administrativo, ¿qué lengua es la que está representada con ls convenciones gráficas latinas.
6. Textos en romance, ¿dónde? ¡cómo? ¿cuándo?
7. La situación medieval: lenguas, expansión, el adstrato/superestrato árabe (depende de las zonas); la situación del catalán (que forma diasitema con distintas lenguas occitanas; el catalán como intermediario (de occitanismos, galicismos, italianismos, mozarabismos y las tesis de Corominas).
Los dominios aragonés y leonés y su disolución en el castellano (el leonés), en lo que ya se podría llamar español y el aragonés. 
8. Situación actual: Normalizados están el español, el portugués y el gallego (que forman el diasistema gallego-portugués, el catalán, el vasco, el aranés (del sistema lingüistico occitano), el aragonés está normativizándose (si ya no lo está) y dos variedades del astur-leonés, el asturiano, y el mirandés están normativizadas, pero con distintitos criterios, la variedad leonesa central (el leonés geográfico) todavía está en proceso de normativización (esta variedad central es la más difusa pues son islas en un medio español hablante (con mucha acción de sustrato por parte del leonés), en zonas de Asturias también sucede o mismo y en Cantabria, la variedaad cántabra forma diasitema con los bables de asturias y el leonés central nordoccidental.
9. Bilingüismo y diglosia y sus efectos lingüisticos (el caso del castrapo gallego). El español sufre acciones de sustrato y de adstrato en todas las zonas en que convive con otra variedades lingüísticas vivas, o se ha instalado sobre variedades extinguidas. En lo que fue el antiguo reino de León hay acción de sustrato (atenuada en Valladolid y Palencia, fuerte en León, Zamora, Salamanca, Cáceres y norte de Badajoz.
El sustrato vasco en Álava y Navarra, el sustrato aragonés y su acance; el diasitema medieval navarro-riojano-aragonés.
10. Las lenguas de frontera: portugués/español, portugués/gallego, portugués/leonés, catalán español de Aragón, catalan español de Castilla la Nueva y Murcia. Dialectos del español:murciano, andaluz, canario, "castúo" y otras variedades extremeñas.
11. La relación gallego portugués: el problema de la lengua medieval, época del nacimiento del portugués. El gallego "exterior": eo-naviego, berciano, el gallego de As portelas. La situación del ll fal del Val do Xálima en el diasitema gallego portugués.
12. El origen y las etapas en la formación y desarrolo del español medieval.
13. El mozárabe: su extensión en el 711; variedad y unidad en el mozárabe; influencia de sustrato y de adstrato; ¿había mozárabes en el s. XI en tierras de dominio musulman?
Las formaciones de los sistemas literarios y de las lenguas de cultura en la E.M.
14. Lenguas de estado y deterioro lingüistico de las lenguas que no son de estado ni imperiales. Siglos oscuros del gallego y marginalización del catalán. Política y lenguas. Las variedades ultramarinas de español, portugués y catalán (Alguer). La situación de los criollos filipinos, el chabacano y otros.

Todavía se podría categorizar más la discusión.
Esta es mi primera y creo que necesaria aportación al tema. Espero y agradezco de antemanos vuestras opiniones, cuestionamientos, propuestas y espero que el debate sea ordenado.


----------



## Hulalessar

XiaoRoel said:


> En este hilo, como ya se ha apuntado, hay una mezcla caótica de datos de todo tipo. Así es imposible llevar un debate ordenado. Intentaré centrar la discusión. Etc



If we took your advice we would be writing a book! There are surely few people who can discuss the topic of this thread over such a wide area and in such detail.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Evidentemente. Pero dado lo espinoso y controvertido (para los hispanos) del tema, es mejor usar un lenguaje neutro (es el que yo usaré) oara no herir susceptibilidades que, en el Estado Español, están a flor de piel. Aquí no es un tema es el que use el grado cero de la escritura, sino un grado altamente connotativo. Hasta entre filólogos a veces (pocas, por suerte y nivel científico) salta la chispa.
No se trataba de que todos tuvieran que opinar sobre todo lo que digo en el mensaje, cada uno aportará lo que pueda, pero no viene mal creo yo, centrar algunos puntos cardinales del debate, que se van a repetir una y otra vez.


----------



## Hulalessar

The problem is that, as much as some linguists would like to do so, language cannot really be discussed in isolation, but only in its social context. The social context in Spain is complicated by many factors.


----------



## Ajura

I forgot to say that Gascon is more similar to Castillian than Catalan like in the changes of f>h.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Ajura dixit:


> I forgot to say that Gascon is more similar to castillian than catalan like in the changes of f>h.


Eso es efecto del _sustrato vasco común_.


----------



## Fer BA

Ya que el hilo es bilingüe, prefiero usar el castellano.

Me parece excelente ordenar la conversación, como propone Xiao ya que comenzó rondando el punto 14, con cuestiones sociolingüistícas (las que a mí más me interesan, concordando con la _declaración de amor _de OHSU #5) y erizó la piel de algunos, y luego se movió a áreas que, sin ser linguista y sin saber si es un término válido -contando con el punto 1 de Xiao- llamaría filogenéticas. 
Creo que son dos áreas que _mueven_ intereses diferentes, distintas emociones y pasiones en cada quien. 
Entiendo lo que Hulalessar dice de los varios factores del contexto social peninsular, y si bien mi variedad del castellano es la rioplatense, somos millones de hablantes del castellano con _otros_ factores y supongo que los pocos que estamos por aquí, estamos fascinados por el debate y quisieramos profundizarlo. En mi caso particular, el castellano no es vivido como una lengua imperial impuesta a las colonias, como sí lo hacen millones de latinoamericanos (una realidad que a veces se escapa del debate sociolingüístico), pero, teniendo abuelos gallegos y catalanes, mi relación _ideológica_ con el castellano es un tanto conflictiva.
Voto por un debate que siga el orden de nuestras pasiones, dentro un marco de rigor científico, sin temor a los _factores,_ y sin convertirlo en una _estricta_ disputa política.


----------



## Ajura

Creo que es el castellano "mandarinas" en las lenguas romances.




> Eso es efecto del sustrato vasco común.


Pienso que los idiomas en occitanoromanza(Gascón, Provenzal, Catalan etcétera) son idiomas de Iberoromance

Gracias...


----------



## XiaoRoel

> Pienso que los idiomas en occitanoromanza(Gascón, Provenzal, Catalan etcétera) son idiomas de Iberoromance


El diasistema occitano participa del iberorromance y del galorromance. El catalán y aranés son muy afín con las lenguas hispánicas propias, el gascón, el provenzal tienen mucho que ver con el galorromance.
Es un *sistema tampón* entre lo _galorromance_ y lo _hispanorromance_, con *sustratos* y *niveles de latín de partida* muy diferentes también.


----------



## Ajura

XiaoRoel said:


> El diasistema occitano participa del iberorromance y del galorromance. El catalán y aranés son muy afín con las lenguas hispánicas propias, el gascón, el provenzal tienen mucho que ver con el galorromance.
> Es un *sistema tampón* entre lo _galorromance_ y lo _hispanorromance_, con *sustratos* y *niveles de latín de partida* muy diferentes también.


Occitan grupo ten elementos de ambos os Galloromance e Iberoromance.

O substrato común entre o grupo occitan e linguas romances ibéricas é o substrato visigoda.

Occitan grupo, incluíndo catalán tamén ten substrato grego das colonias Marsella grego.


----------



## XiaoRoel

_Dudo mucho del __*superestrato* visigodo y mucho más del *adstrato* griego_. 
El sustrato que debe actuar en el diasistema occitano-catalán es el del diasistema vasco-aquitano-ibérico, no indoeuropeo, y que desde siempre está en las mismas zonas geográficas. También debe ser decisiva la variedad de latín vulgar de partida (el latín de la Tarraconensis y de la Provincia tuvieron mucho intercambio en época romana y visigoda).


----------



## Ajura

XiaoRoel said:


> _Dudo mucho del __*superestrato* visigodo y mucho más del *adstrato* griego_.
> El sustrato que debe actuar en el diasistema occitano-catalán es el del diasistema vasco-aquitano-ibérico, no indoeuropeo, y que desde siempre está en las mismas zonas geográficas. También debe ser decisiva la variedad de latín vulgar de partida (el latín de la Tarraconensis y de la Provincia tuvieron mucho intercambio en época romana y visigoda).



Idiomas occitan foi o primeiro falado en Gallia Narbonesis no inicio da época escura no medio do que é agora a Francia moderna, como Auvergne e Tours é habitada polos oradores gala é por iso que Occitan é moi diferente do francés, Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Narbonensis estaba habitada polos galeses e alto-falantes de lingua grega (especialmente Marsella) antes de que os romanos viñeron e nas idades escuras os visigodos invadiron Gallia Narbonensis, así como a Península Ibérica, unha parte da Gallia Narbonensis foi invadida polos invasores musulmáns da Península Ibérica Gallia Narbonensis despois de que foi pasado para os Francos, o substrato éuscaro dalgunhas expresións idiomáticas Occitan só aconteceu cando Occitan expandido posteriormente.

Eu ás veces chamada do grupo Occitano como lingua Narbonense.
-----
(castillian version)
los idiomas occitano hablado por primera vez en la Galia Narbonesis en la primera parte de la Edad Media el centro de lo que ahora es Francia moderna, como Auvernia y Tours está habitada por los oradores galos es por eso que el occitano es muy diferente del francés, Galia Narbonense, Gallia Narbonense fue habitada por los oradores galos y la de lengua griega (especialmente de Marsella), antes de que llegaron los romanos y en la Edad Media los visigodos invadieron Galia Narbonense, así como la Península Ibérica, una parte de la Galia Narbonense fue invadida por los invasores musulmanes de la península ibérica después de que Galia Narbonense se pasó a los francos, el sustrato vasco de algunos modismos occitano sólo ocurrió cuando el occitano ampliado más adelante. 

A veces me llaman el grupo Occitano como lengua narbonense.


----------



## XiaoRoel

De acuerdo con el origen común desde el latín de la Narbonense. Pero la influencia griega, a lo visto en la magna Grecia, no fue tan intenso en el latín. Y en todo caso, no actúa directamente el la formación del diasistema occitano.
Para evitar confusiones hay que decir que el catalán se forja al norte de los Pirineos, en el Rosellón y la Cerdaña y zonas colindantes. La llegada del catalán al territorio propiamente hispánico, establecerá unas derivas lingüísticas que lo acercarán mucho al resto de lenguas hispánicas, por eso el occitano es hoy un diasistema tampón y no una familia de lenguas galorrománica.


----------



## Ajura

XiaoRoel said:


> De acuerdo con el origen común desde el latín de la Narbonense. Pero la influencia griega, a lo visto en la magna Grecia, no fue tan intenso en el latín. Y en todo caso, no actúa directamente el la formación del diasistema occitano.
> Para evitar confusiones hay que decir que el catalán se forja al norte de los Pirineos, en el Rosellón y la Cerdaña y zonas colindantes. La llegada del catalán al territorio propiamente hispánico, establecerá unas derivas lingüísticas que lo acercarán mucho al resto de lenguas hispánicas, por eso el occitano es hoy un diasistema tampón y no una familia de lenguas galorrománica.



Ese é o meu punto exactamente, pero non é só das linguas ibéricas son os relacionados coa diasystem Occitan, Liguria / xenovés tamén está relacionada coa Occitan

Mozárabe, AsturLeonesa ,Aragonés e Navarro son os máis azarado das linguas romances ibéricas


----------



## jmnjmn

XiaoRoel said:


> Ajura dixit:
> 
> Eso es efecto del _sustrato vasco común_.



No es por enredar, pero en vasco no hay, ni, probablemente, hubo "f" /f/ (es importada de romance -posiblemente del occitano o del propio castellano-). Tengo una anécdota personal en este sentido bastante divertida (por si interesa).

Creo que hay estudios que descartan esa hipótesis del sustrato vasco y se decantan más (Alarcos Llorach) por la neutralización de los sonidos /f/ y /h/ por la dificultad de los oyentes usuarios de la lengua para distinguir ambos.

Pero, bueno, después de leer en este hilo algunos comentarios de que la filología que hemos estudiado en las universidades españolas es poco menos que basura arcaíca, no me atrevo a decir nada.


----------



## Ajura

jmnjmn said:


> No es por enredar, pero en vasco no hay, ni, probablemente, hubo "f" /f/ (es importada de romance -posiblemente del occitano o del propio castellano-). Tengo una anécdota personal en este sentido bastante divertida (por si interesa).
> 
> Creo que hay estudios que descartan esa hipótesis del sustrato vasco y se decantan más (Alarcos Llorach) por la neutralización de los sonidos /f/ y /h/ por la dificultad de los oyentes usuarios de la lengua para distinguir ambos.
> 
> Pero, bueno, después de leer en este hilo algunos comentarios de que la filología que hemos estudiado en las universidades españolas es poco menos que basura arcaíca, no me atrevo a decir nada.



Castillian and Basque has an /f/ becuase of Catalan influence.


----------



## relativamente

Ajura said:


> Castillian and Basque has an /f/ becuase of Catalan influence.


 
I do not know Basque but for sure the f sound has always existed in Castillian and later in Spanish and I dont think is due to any external influence but inherited from Latin.
For example from Latin focus you have Catalan foc and Castillian fuego.
In the beginning of words some times the f in Castillian desappeared and an h appeared instead like in filius Latin fill Catalan hijo Spanish.


----------



## Ajura

relativamente said:


> I do not know basque but for sure the f sound has always existed in Castillian and later in Spanish and I dont think is due to any external influence but inherited from latin.
> For example from latin focus you have Catalan foc and castillian fuego.
> In the beginning of words some times the f in castillian desappeared and an h appeared instead like in filius Latin  fill Catalan    hijo Spanish.



Yes, they are losing but the debuccalization of f stopped because of Catalan influence.


----------



## jmnjmn

Ajura said:


> Castillian and Basque has an /f/ becuase of Catalan influence.




No hay indicios de que el catalán haya estado en contacto con el vasco. Sin embargo si hay convivencia estrecha con el occitano y con el castellano (sin olvidar el propio latín). 

Koldo Mitxelena en su "Fonética histórica vasca" (Pág. 262-268) defiende  que es un prestamo muy reciente (medieval probablemente).


----------



## Ajura

jmnjmn said:


> No hay indicios de que el catalán haya estado en contacto con el vasco. Sin embargo si hay convivencia estrecha con el occitano y con el castellano (sin olvidar el propio latín).
> 
> Koldo Mitxelena en su "Fonética histórica vasca" (Pág. 262-268) defiende  que es un prestamo muy reciente (medieval probablemente).



I am calling Occitans and Present day Catalans as Catalans in general because during the middle ages Occitans or the Langues D'Oc speakers were called Catalans in contrast with French or Langues D'oil speakers,Occitan was a technical name for them.



> Albertet de Sestaró, says: "Monks, tell me which according to your knowledge are better: the French or the Catalans? and here I shall put Gascony, Provence, Limousin, Auvergne and Viennois while there shall be the land of the two kings."[1] In Marseille, a typical Provençal song is called 'Catalan song'. (M. Milà i Fontanals, De los Trobadores en España, p. 487)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitano-Romance_languages


----------



## jmnjmn

Ajura said:


> I am calling Occitans and Present day Catalans as Catalans in general because during the middle ages Occitans or the Langues D'Oc speakers were normally called Catalans in contrast with French or Langues D'oil speakers.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitano-Romance_languages



El vasco estuvo en contacto con el gascón, el aquitano y el bearnés (todas lenguas d'Oc). Nada que ver con el catalán.


----------



## Ajura

jmnjmn said:


> El vasco estuvo en contacto con el gascón, el aquitano y el bearnés (todas lenguas d'Oc). Nada que ver con el catalán.



yup of all the romance dialects it was only Gascon and Castillian that had the most contact with the basques..


----------

