Talk:Basque language/Archive 4

Mistake on the claimer of the Veleia inscriptions
There was a serious mistake in the paragraph on the Veleia inscriptions. The claimer was Eliseo Gil (then director of the Veleia site excavations), whereas M. Rius was the person consulted on the Egyptian inscriptions. As this means nothing on the alleged Basque inscriptions IMHO all the mention to her and the note/reference should be deleted from this article.

I quote from a recent paper: "El equipo de Eliseo Gil adelantó parte de sus hallazgos el 8 de junio de 2006 " --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article still states "However the whole finding has come under serious question, even to the point of tarnishing Rius's scholarly pedigree." and gives as reference. Should this be changed as well? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think so, as this is on the "alleged" Egyptian inscriptions (for which the Veleia team asked to M. Rius, and they said she is an egyptologist) and on the Latin inscriptions with the name Nefertiti. It's an interview to an egyptologist (Prof. Moreno), so the data has nothing to do with the Basque language.


 * Unfortunately the copy of Gorrochategui's and Lakarra's reports seems to have been deleted from internet and, although I saved a copy, it's now an unpublished text.


 * A better link could be Iruña-Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos: Un triste y anunciado final (Alicia Canto is a University Professor and epigraphist) where there are reference to the "official" reports and many quotes to newspapers or this one from a newspaper Estalla el escándalo de Iruña Veleia por la falsedad de los hallazgos or Los expertos concluyen que los grafitos en euskara del siglo III son 'totalmente falsos'.


 * But as the inscriptions seem to be definitely a fake, probably sooner or later all the paragraph on the Veleia Basque inscriptions will be deleted. What a pity all this unfortunate matter. --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I nominate the paragraph on the Veleia inscriptions for deletion. It probably deserves its own article (very interesting case of apparent archaeological forgery); in this article it deserves nothing but a very short sentence along the lines of: In 2006, a set of early Basque inscriptions were reported at Veleia, seeming to push the earliest dated writing in Basque to the third Century, but the were soon discovered to be forgeries.-jackbrown (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, one year later, it is completly clear that the Iruña Veleia inscriptions were forgeries. I really think we should take out that paragraph. It seems really out of place now (and kind of shameful) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirus (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the deletion - I'd personally leave it there. It was big news and there will be people wanting to know about it. Also, I'm not entirely sure if the debate is all "done and dusted", there are some that still maintain it wasn't a forgery AFAIK. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, let's talk about this? After all, there are pages like Piltdown Man. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no prob with the paragraph itself, just not where it was. It's irrelevant for the classification of the language. kwami (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The addition also seems rather long for the content it adds. A (very) brief note (maybe a single sentence) might be appropriate, but a whole paragraph seems to be overkill on what is, essentially, a forgery (from what I can tell) and not, in the end, relevant to the issue of describing the Basque language.  (Taivo (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I see your points. Though it seems to me stating (if one could get hold of the papers) what the scientific basis for refuting their authenticity would be useful. It has actually made me realise we have virtually nothing on the page that talks about the broad timeline of the documented history of the language... seems to me we need a History of Basque section where the IV thing could be discussed briefly. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kwami. From an encyclopedic viewpoint they have the same sense here as in the articles on Latin Epigraphy, Ancient Egyptian an some others. The same as the conspiracy theories on the Apolo XI as a fake voyage in the article on the moon or in the biography of Armstrong. At best they belong to [Iruña-Veleia]. On the claimers that it is not a forgery, their "arguments" are so absurd, as their oblivion on what they cannot explain. A graphologic forensic report (reported to a judge) concludes that most of the inscriptions were made by the same hand that wrote a modern reconstruction (of 2004 AC !) and there is more evidence... --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A history of Basque article would be cool, but a serious one requires far more time than I have. If someone is up to it, I find really interesant Oppenheimer opinions on the matter, about a "protobasque" family of languages starting in the iberian peninsula and south of france, just after the LGM and expanding through the repopulation of the british islands. Also, there was some german author proposing a proto basque substrate under lusitanian, but I can not remember his name right now.

Even in that case, I would exclude Iruña Veleia from there. I also do not want to have an Article called Iruña Veleia about the hoax, because IV is an important archaelogical site and does not deserve that. I just do not know where to put that info, even if I recognize it is important. Any ideas? Leirus (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tidying the page
Progressivly tidying up the page - done various bits now. I think we need a slightly better section on the demographics of the language, which I was going to do next. Should be easy once I figure out how to do graphs, I got all the sociolinguistic atlases here. Beyond that, anything else you guys reckon that needs expanding/sorting? Perhaps more on Aquitanian? Open to suggestions. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PS anyone know what this article is rated low importance? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where? I don't see any importance rating. kwami (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right underneath this talk section, at the very bottom of the page. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009

Tidying this page of a libel
I kindly ask you to clean up your perfectly organised page of a libel.If you do not speak Spanish I will translate you what this page says ANONIMOUSLY against internationally respected University professors.You have restored what another user cleaned yesterday:the libel. In fact,the author is being searched by the Spanish police to be taken to Court.Even the people who worked close to him do not know where he is,we are all astonished of the quick dissapearance (as far as we know he worked  some time ago in one of the Barcelona's University ,as assistant,close to us).I am not going to delete this reference.You can of course support him.--Iberomesornix (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you explain again please? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You already know what is going on.I have informed you.If you want I will translate what is said in the page ,edited by an anonimous user for you and me ,but not for Guardia Civil expert squad.However ,I think it is better that a 3rd part translates this to you.I will have to inform to Wikipedia staff about this.--Iberomesornix (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)--Iberomesornix (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Err... feel free - I hope they will understand what you're trying to say :) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that Iberomesornix and Virginal6 (at the same time, ooooh great coincidence;-) are again accusing of censorship of Arnaiz-Villena theories (in spite of the fact that we showed them many reliable sources stating that Arnaiz-Villena theories are an "unmitigated disaster" and "compulsory comic" whereas their supporters could not show any supporting their theories), accusing others of bullying, conspirations, hidden interests, poppetry and some other nasty things against users as me, Kwami, Trigaranus, Akerbeltz; may I remember that Iberomesormix still has not explained two things:


 * First: he is writing offending comments on an alleged anonymous person (a deceiving assert itself that shows a deceiving intention, as they deleted the name just before) accusing him of being a fugitive, but I asked elsewhere some reference, and mumm is the word.


 * Second: I showed some clear clues on the fact that user Iberomesornix was using the same IP that an "anonymous" that claimed to be Arnaiz-Villena  (as a matter of fact it is easy to see that this IP is a public IP from a health institution of Madrid). This suggest that Iberomesornix publishes original research and self promotion, while he is writing libels. This also remains unexplained.


 * So before claiming imaginary conspiration and accusing other users of "bullying" some explanations are needed. I bet you, Iberomesornix and company, have as many references (that is to say none at all, absolutely nothing), as when I asked references for the alleged Sumerian words and their alleged meanings that allegedly confirmed Arnaiz-Villena theories. You know, Wikipedia works with reliable sources, not with interested wishful-thinkings and badmouthing.  --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DELETING ALL REFERENCES ABOUT VELEIA,WHY?
I did not throw anything TO you (not AT),I was innocent.Now,I am not.Is this a big deceit? I thought you were half or full British born according to your page.I am not British,as you know, Akerbeltz.Should I make a page for myself? I will do,but with the few real data I want to be known. Larry Trask was recalling arguments for finding Iberian and Basque languages relationships.He enumerated the 5 SAME vowels as one argument.I agree that we cannot be sure about this.In fact ,Trask was enumerating arguments for dismissing them as you also know.But I thought you were British-borne.,and thought you might not know the book.

On the other hand, I think it is not useful for the Wiki-readers that when I write a reference about Veleia problems, you delete all references about Veleia findings:quite a few experts independent from the official Local Government Commitee are contesting the “official “outcome:”hundreds of 3rd century Basque inscriptions on ceramics are a "fake” .Who has made the fake? What for? How? --Virginal6 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am in favour of information about the hot debate that is nowadays going on about Veleia.I am not a supporter of the “true” hypothesis.

Basque language page is not complete without this Veleia discussion.--Virginal6 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on the Iberian page to the Iberian issue. The deletion of Veleia stuff wasn't me. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Akerbeltz,why don't you leave Kwa to state "Vasconic languages"? Your position that Basque is an isolate is now difficult to keep? Virginal6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.143.247 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It is clearly an isolate if you accept that all lects are varieties of a single language, which is generally the case. There are lots of "isolates" which may be considered small families, depending on how you classify their dialects (Yapen, Nambikwara, Japanese, etc). That is just the language/dialect debate, and doesn't diminish the huge gap that exists between them and other languages. And every isolate belongs to a family, albeit a family of one. kwami (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But I think "Vasconic languages",anyway, is more appropriate.How many Basque,say ,"variants" have existed before the Batua compilation? I would say that many more than the main recognized

"dialects":valleys,towns... differences. And Aquitan? In this sense present day Basque is not an isolate,but an artificial language.--88.9.143.101 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah right... I presume you similarly want to argue there's no German language and no French language cause they're "artificial forms" because they're not organic dialects but standardised forms? Sorry, I won't even enter that discussion, that's just too silly for words. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible connections ...
Well, after clearly reading some of the Basque text on this article, it seems to me that Basque is a mix of Japanese and Turkish. Some say Japanese is an Altaic language, and if it is, it will be related to Turkish. As for now, I have no doubt that it came from some sort of Altaic root. Il Studioso  05:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who thinks so, and personal opinion doesn't count in Wikipedia. Basque has not been demonstrated to be related to any other recorded language. (Taivo (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Correct, and this page is not a forum for discussing personal opinions. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work! The section on Hypotheses on connections with other languages seems quite balanced at the moment. Thanks to everyone for their efforts! --Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work! The section on Hypotheses on connections with other languages seems quite balanced at the moment. Thanks to everyone for their efforts! --Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Indo-European? Are Indo-Europeans the center of the world?
I read that some languages are defined as pre-Indo-European once and again. But, IMHO, this is a clear mistake as it is not a linguistic classification, as language are not divided in Indo-European and not Indo-European. It is an ethnocentric definition, coming from outdated invasion theories in which there is only a subject in the languages history: the expansion of Indo-European languages over the substrata.

It is like saying that Irish is pre-English. Or in Alexander the Great conquest, Semitic language (as Arab) were pre-Indoeuropan; in Medieval Spain Arab was post-Indo-European, but pre-Spanish, English a post-Latin, Latin a pre-English, etc. etc.. Just to put it clear (in a big exageration) it is like saying that Apache is a pre-Caucasian race people.

BTW: In fact there is no data to know if there was an Indo-European substratum or not in the land where Basque is spoken today. I am not claiming that there do were Indo-Europeans before, I am only stating that we know nothing about (as, for example, Etruscan is likely to be post-Indo-European in Italy; and Hugarian obviously is), and so that the pre-Indoeuropean terminology it is not only a linguistic absurd, but an unproven hypothesis. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That the Indo-European languages did not originate in Western or Central Europe is a fact. They came from somewhere else and moved into the rest of Europe.  Therefore, it is unambiguous what the term "pre-Indo-European" means in this context and it is not a genetic classification, but a historical timeframe.  Basque is, indeed, the only language still spoken in Europe that predates the arrival of the Indo-European languages.  (Taivo (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC))


 * My point is that saying that a language is pre-IndoEuropean has no sense at all.


 * On what is fact or what is not: any proof that Basque was spoken in West Europe before the Indo-European languages?


 * I have no problem if people prefer to keep a non scientific and very doubious term as "pre-Indo-European", especially as that phrasing assumes that we know something that we do not know, but it deservers a warning. The assert is as unambiguous as irrelevant (I beg perdon for the joke, but it is as saying: it is the only Western language who begings with the letters BA-; yes it is a bad joke, but I hope that it states my oppinion).


 * I am simply tired of this habit of using Indo-European as a measure for everything. Some people may think that the label pre-Indoeuropean is a honour for the Basque language, I think that to define a language according to other languages and not by itself is not exactly an honour. If editors believe that definition to be good, keep (as you wish), I am only oppinating that it is a clear mistake that it is a assert as good as the example of 'featherless biped' by Aristotle. But it is only my oppinion, of course. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But what makes Basque intriguing is precisely this point. It attests to a historical diversity in Europe that is not otherwise preserved; IE is pretty much the norm in Europe now, so that even the Hungarians and Finns feel somewhat out of place linguistically. Non-IE langs such as Maltese are no big deal, since they're recent introductions.


 * Taivo, I do wonder about your statement that the introduction of Finno-Ugric is recent. In Hungary, yes, but even Khanty and Mansi lie within Europe. kwami (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on how far east you want to draw the line. Khanty and Mansi are east of the Urals, so they are outside Europe.  Most English speakers think of "Europe" as being the non-Soviet part of Europe.  Few people realize that the actual geographic center of Europe is within the borders of Ukraine.  Most of the Finno-Ugric literature I've read has the Finnic branch spreading west out of the Urals.  So it all depends on the common perception of where the eastern edge of Europe is.  (Taivo (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't see a problem with the term. It has scientific relevance, it denotes linguistic (and to some extent cultural) continuity for a certain timespan for example. In Western Europe, using IE or non-IE as a comparative yardstick is acceptable. The Hadza language for example sticks out for being non-Bantu in a sea of Bantu, or the Brahui language which is equally surrounded by IE. These are important facts. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let it so then. To me it is not a satisfactory definition (something like saying that Basque is a not-transitive, not-tonal, not-isolating...), too subjective, showing what is a absolutely normal language as something odd. For example, in Europe it is more exceptional the English language as being the most isolating language (in its structure Basque has parallels in Europe, but I do not remember any European language as isolating as the English one).


 * I would prefer to use the pre- prefix only in its historical context (so Aztec was a pre-Hispanic / pre-Spanish culture, but not a pre-Spanish / pre-Hispanic language), or when the language has no other name because is unknown or only known as a substratum (as the Celtic subtratum or the ancient Greek subtratum). But doesn't mind.


 * The other caveat is that, as a matter of fact, we do not know for sure that the Basque language pre-dates Indoeuropean languages. When we have the first information on a Basque kind of language, we know many Indo-Europeans in West Spain (even in the Basque Country) (an many references claim that Tartessian (in SW Iberia in the VIII c. bC) was an Indo-European language (see John Koch's (University of Wales) 2009 book Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History). Remember also the Etruscan language, for which many experts consider an Aegean origin, when the alleged Italic substratum ("pre-idoeuropean") may be in fact an adstratum. Remember also when the mainstream theory on Basque origin was that it was an Afrasian language akin to Berber (so non European, but rather an African adstratum; although I do not believe this theory, but it is as alive and kicking as the Caucasian theory: you can even find it in Trask p. 361 ).


 * I am aware that I am spliting hairs (looking to details), but maybe (only maybe) the wording should be more careful on these details, as the reader may think that we know data that at the best are more or less probable inductions in an ocean of lack of information.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dumu, I'm not sure how you figure we can't say with a fair amount of certainty it's pre-IE. We have a date for IE arriving in Europe and the Aquitanians are mentioned fairly early on in the records by the romans and to some extent the Greeks. Their long-term presence is also backed up by the genetic record.
 * Fair point about Etruscan etc but the thing is, Basque is the only *surviving* pre-IE language of Western Europe - which makes it unusual enough to merit mentioning. People hone in on things that make something stick out more so than they hone in on commonalities. That's why a lungfish is called a lungfish!
 * Either way, it's described as non-IE often enough in the wider literature, so I don't think this is something we should spend out energy on. I could do with some help on the Basque dialects page or perhaps bringing Aizkolaritza or one of the other Basque rural sports pages to GA status :) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ALl that matters is that we quote reliable/verifiable sources correctly, if they use the term, we should, if they don't, we shouldn't. It's not up to us to decide what it should be. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well,to me it is not the best way to define a language (not logic, too subjective), but I have exposed my reasons and my worryings, and if nobody else sees this as a problem, better than trying to expand the explanations of my reasons is  to forget about it. Case closed. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I agree with Dumu a bit. Modern Basque is not "pre-Indo-European" unless it hasn't changed since (Proto-)Indo-European began being spoken. The important information conveyed by the sentence in question is that Basque is a language isolate. Presumably it descends from a non-IE language that was spoken in the Pyrenees region before the arrival of Indo-European speakers, and is in that sense "pre-Indo-European"; some scholarly references call Basque a "pre-Indo-European" language in this way. But others simply use "non-Indo-European", which avoids giving the impression that Basque hasn't changed since primeval times; so I'd prefer to use "non-Indo-European" rather than "pre-Indo-European". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We could say the only "indigenous non-IE language", at least for W Europe. It's not the only non-IE language. kwami (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, either of those would be better than 'pre-Indo-European'. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The real question is what does Trask call it since this is clearly a comment from one of his books. (Taivo (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC))


 * At least in east Europe it is not an option. There are problems with the Caucasian languages (many families), and of course Uralic, which are known to have been in contact with common Proto-IE and most probably in Europe. I am sure that references can be find on the birth place of the Uralic languages.


 * Of course I still think that telling that a language is pre-IE or not IE is more a comment that a definition (as saying that Basque is not a transitive language instead of saying ergative language, but that's another story.... --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Basques are Indo-Europeans in 85% (one of the highest proportion in Europe). The Basque language is a koine of Iberian, Celtic and Latin, is easily verifiable. It emerged around the IIIBC century. Basque nationalism created and maintains the myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.45.5 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I needed a good laugh, 83.42.45.5, thanks for that! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just read this in the early morning today - that was enuff to make my OJ come out of my nose. Tell me, if you are still out there, anon IP, what colour is the sky in your LSD-linguistic world?HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Basque is related very distantly to pre nostratic Turkic with R1b haplotype being dene caucasian marker
Basque is related very distantly to pre nostratic Turkic with R1b haplotype being dene caucasian marker Basque grammar is very very similar to that of Turkish Humanbyrace (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For Turk ultra-nationalists, is any language not somehow related to Turkish? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Eh, no and no? Also genetics is not linguistic evidence. ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously known next to nothing about both Basque and Turkish grammar. That aside, as Maunus points out, languages aren't coded in our genes. Next. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The classic example of the non-linguistic nature of genetics is the Pygmy tribes of central Africa. They are a unique and ancient genetically separate people.  But they speak languages in no less than four separate groups of the Niger-Congo family.  There is no such thing as a "Pygmy language group" even though there is a very clear "Pygmy genetic group".  (Taivo (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Shift in Portuguese?
The text claims there was a "similar" merger of /v/ and /b/ in Portuguese. I am a native speaker of Portuguese and I am completely unaware of any such merger. I would also like to know if the same is true in Occitan, Catalan, etc like the text claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.3.37 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely there are better sources, but for instance see here and here on Portuguese /v/. Such phenomena use to begin as dialectal ones, then may spread until becoming "standard" or not. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I wonder though how recent is this merger and if it is due in part to contact with Castillian. But I guess that's beyond the scope of the discussion for this page. Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.3.37 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but being a native speaker is never a guarantee of being familiar with the historical development of that language. I'm a native speaker of German (amongst others) but I couldn't explain Grimm's law to you! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said I was attempting to explain a shift, I had just never heard nor seen any evidence for a /v/-/b/ merger in Portuguese. You can't explain Grimm's law but you definitely know the consequences, from comparing the contemporary languages. As the references Dumu pointed out, only certain dialects in Northern Portugal merge /v/ and /b/, of which I was unaware, both from my own anecdotal evidence gathered as a native speaker as well as my apparently limited reading on descriptions of contemporary Portuguese dialects. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.3.37 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * According to what I remember (although my memory is not perfect) it uses to be believed that in Portuguese it is not related with Castillian, but rather as a phenomenon that also affected Castillian (but I am not aware of the medieval proofs). In Eastern Catalan the Castillian influence is modern, but the "phenomenon", but in Western Catalan is more ancient and seems more related to the Pyrenees. Hence the idea of a "northern" Basque (or similar) influence over Portuguese, Castillian, Catalan and Occitan. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't vouch for its accuracy but it also says so on the Galician-Portuguese page. Perhaps - given no one here seems to be a specialist in Portuguese phonology - you might want to take it up there and once the matter has been clarified by some experts, we can adjust this page if necessary? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)