Talk:Glosas Emilianenses

Removing additions without justification

 * you removed the following addition without justification:


 * 08:46, 21 August 2022‎ Thoughtfortheday talk contribs‎ 10,346 bytes −233‎  Undid revision 1105654777 by Temax (talk) this insertion doesn't really belong in the lede

The text said: "IX century documents in an evolved Latin from the province of Burgos. As the school director Gonzalo Santoja explains: «it can be concluded that the language of the glosas is a Latin language assaulted by a living language, from the street and that sneaks into these writings»."

The above addition adds the statement of a professor and school director directly involved in the matter. Saying that "it does not belong to the lede" without explaining why does not qualify as a justification. Unless you can justify why this addition to the article and this reference *cannot* be added there, I will add it back, as it is important data to clarify the statement from Real Academia Española, as it talks about "the live language from the street" that changed the traditional rigid Latin language. I will give you some time to answer. Thank you. Temax (talk)


 * Thanks for explaining your point of view. I apologise for any offence I may have given and no, I certainly don't want to pontificate on what can or cannot be added to an article. On a specific point, Gonzalo Santoja, whose authority I am not disputing (I understand he is involved with the Instituto Castellano y Leonés de la Lengua), appears not to have been referring to the San Millan glosses in the quotation in question, and I am not sure that was clear from your edit.


 * On a more general point, I think that the lede has grown longer than is recommended. Perhaps it would be better if information such as details about other interesting old documents could be moved to an appropriate section below the lede. You will see I moved some material about languages spoken in the locality of the monastery.
 * I look forward to reading your reply in due course.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct category?
Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/nietoviguera/glosasvascuences.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist
 * http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/wolf/emilianensesotravez.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Date?
The article doesn't seem to mention what date the manuscripts come from. This is vitally important information for linguistic study, when was it written? The only information we are given is "about a thousand years ago", so what 1014 AD? Or is it "a thousand years" since they were noticed in the early twentieth century? A thousand years from when? At least please specify what century it was written in. --Hibernian (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --Error (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Latin text?
From looking at the full page, I understand that the Latin text does not exactly correspond to the long gloss quoted here, but I cannot read that hand properly. Can somebody confirm the relation between the Latin and the Romance texts? --Error (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

redirect needed
In the popular press (e.g., The Economist, last issue of 2022), the material is referred to as Emilian glosses. I request a redirect from that English gloss to this Latin-named page. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:385B:C3E1:A178:FCA2 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. --Jotamar (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)