Talk:Romance languages/Archive 2


 * Discussions archived here are those initiated in 2006.

The Eastern Romance and Western Romance division
User:24.83.202.184 added the Western/Eastern division of the Romance languages (based on the La Spezia-Rimini Line) into the article, but this seems to (?) ignore such groupings as Italo-Western, while Romanian is generally placed on its own branch of Romance, Eastern Romance. We need a survey of the current authorities here. See also La Spezia-Rimini Line and Romance plurals. Alexander 007 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am a mother-language Italian speaker. I have studied some French, so I will not use it for comparison. However, I can certainly read Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan (Catalan especially is very similar to Italian); I once tried, however, to skim through Aristotles' Logic in Romanian, and it could have been Sindarin to me. Some international words can be recognised, but so would they even in Japanese for that sake (pun not intended). I am told Romanian maintained declension systems, discarded altoghether in Italian.
 * The problem with the La Spezia-Rimini Line is that it runs suspiciously close to the purported borders of Padania, which makes me suspect a political motive. Southern Italy was under the dominion of the Spaniards, not the Romanians, for a long time. There were no connections to Romania as far as I know (except maybe through the Byzantine Empire at some point in the middle ages, but their language was Greek anyway). If this line is for real, there is surely some peer-reviewed literature supporting it, since it's far from an obvious fact. Until that is reported, the most logical place for Italian is among Western Romance languages. --Orzetto 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The number 16
I added and changed a few things in that section, but I still have some problems with it:


 * Why is English "sixteen" irregular?
 * Why is it relevant here that Romanian is a member of the Balkan linguistic union?

Does anyone know a reference on this? — Adi Japan   ☎  13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

French in America
Added French for America, with estimated population speaking it. Dali 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sicilian dialect
Every Italian dialect, French dialect or other Romance language dialect is recognized by Ethnologue and has its own page: check Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian language (Romance), Neapolitan language, Venetian language, Corsican language, Picard language, Norman language and many many many others. So we can put all of these languages/dialects in the article, and clutter it irremediably, or remove the Sicilian languages, that doesn't deserve more than any other one. GhePeU 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, GhePeU, you do not cite any resources to support your claim that Sicilian, Corsican, Neapolitan, Ligurian, Lombard, and Venetian are not 'real' languages. There are more linguistic and historical reasons to categorize them as languages than I have the time to write.  --VingenzoTM 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sardinian is mentioned (300,000 speakers), Occitan is mentioned (2m speakers), but Sicilian with 10m speakers can't be mentioned - mmm, POV city, here we come. [[Image:Agrigente temple herakles.jpg|40px]] ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Occitan is a whole different language (langue d'oc) opposed to current French language (one of the langues d'oïl), Sardinian had a completely different evolution from Latin due to its peculiar substrates, just like Ladin and Friulian belongs to a different linguistic group. GhePeU 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * GhePeU - you wrote "Sardinian had a completely different evolution from Latin due to its peculiar substrates..." and what do you mean by that? Do you mean that it has a completely different evolution in comparison to French?  Your reasoning is very unclear and on that premise, you argue that Sardinian can be called a language, because it has a completely different evolution than French?  Please be more specific because your comments hold little substance, and are devoid of any cited, factual information.  --VingenzoTM 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sicilian language

 * Your reasoning still makes zero sense - continuing to refer to Sicilian as a dialect is POV in the extreme on your part - you obviously don't know too much about the evolution of Sicilian, you have jumped to a conclusion without even looking into it thorougly, i.e. POV city, here we come! [[Image:Agrigente temple herakles.jpg|40px]] ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You put Sicilian in, you put every single Italian language with a dedicated page in Wikipedia. Start with Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Central Italian, Ligurian language (Romance), Neapolitan language, Venetian language and Corsican language. Then you can't leave out the alternate French languages, and I'm pretty sure that there are some Castillan dialects, and some Romanian and Portuguese dialect that Ethnlogue considers languages. How about carving some place for them too? GhePeU 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * GhePeU, I ask you again to share with readers the scientific, linguistic information that points toward considering the above languages dialects. Your disdain for Sicilian and the other languages of Italy seems to come from a personal bias, in my own opinion.  The lack of providing any credible sources or citations for your comments leads me to believe that your knowledge about the linguistic situation in Italy is coming out of thin air.  You also seem to have a distaste for Ethnologue's linguistic classifications.  But again, I beg you to provide your own resources, if in fact they even exist, in order to counter Ethnologue.  Until that point, you have not even the slightest background information needed to defend your position on the matter. --VingenzoTM 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How dare you change an edit of mine on this talk page! Just how POV you are is becoming clearer and clearer.  One, you insist on using the term "dialect" when I have already said that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts Sicilian as a language.  Two, once you strip away the term "dialect", what do you have left as part of your argument?  Sicilian is the most widely spoken Romance langauge after Catalan.  It therefore has every right to remain.  It's up to others more knowledgable about other romance languages as to whether they get a guernsey.   At least I have the guts to put my real name to these edits, and I am not just some anonymous rabble rouser.  [[Image:Agrigente temple herakles.jpg|40px]] ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia accepts all the Italian dialects as languages, check Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian language (Romance), Neapolitan language, Venetian language and Corsican language. So you put them all or you remove Sicilian. And by the way, 10,000,000 speakers is a numebr without justifications, Ethnologue (you always cite it) gives 4,832,520 speakers (this is the population of Sicily, including people that don't speak Sicilian), and if you want to double the number because you count third and fourth generation emigrants you must double the speakers of the other dialects too. And for example, recent polls indicate that 80% of Veneto population (about 3,600,000) speaks regularly in Venetian language, not to count the millions of emigrants from Veneto and Friuli that settled in Brazil and Argentina. GhePeU 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * GhePeu, maybe you should follow the suit of Pippu and begin to cite your own resources. The Wikipedia project is an enciclopedic work, and should be treated with the same respect as other published documents.  This means you must cite your information and be able to support what is written using factual data.  Unfortunately, you are providing nothing of the sort in your quest to defame certain languages.  --VingenzoTM 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)VingenzoTM 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you being deliberately perverse? The ethnologue entry merely gives the population  of Sicily - it is not meant as an estimate of the speakers of the language.  Throw in the speakers from southern Calabria, Salentino and the millions of Sicilian immigrants to the USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia and the EC amd Northern Italy in recent decades and there is your answer.  Lastly, is your chief concern that Venetian is not getting a guernsey?  You don't like seeing the more unworthy southern language showing up ahead of something from Northern Italy - is that the chief concern?   And you describe me as being POV?  I'll let whoever have a crack, but I will return, as long as the Wikipedia Foundation accepts Sicilian as a language, then I am entitled to make reference to it in a general article on the Romance languages, especially when it is the 7th most common, and has many features which set it apart from Italian, certainly worth highlighting in an article such this I would have thought.    ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I made an example with Venetian because I know directly its status, but what I wrote is not valid just for Venetian (and note that I'm not the one trying to slip in "its dialect" here). I'm trying to tell that every single language now considered a "dialect of Italy" has the same right to be in a prominence position. You keep repeting that "Wikimedia recognize Sicilian as a language", that "Sicilian has more speakers than what officially recognized", that "it is different from Italian". Well, this is true for every Italian languages/dialect, and while you gave reason for putting Sicilian there, you did not give a single reason for putting ONLY Sicilian there. So again, either you explicitly cite Piedmontese language, Lombard language, Ligurian language (Romance), Venetian language, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Central Italian, Neapolitan language and Corsican language or you don't put any of them. GhePeU 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * GhePeu, I do not understand why you continue to write such nonsense, such as "every single language, now considered a 'dialect of Italy', has the same right to be in a prominent position" ... or "well, this is true for every Italian language/dialect" ... Before we can properly educate you about linguistics in Italy, we need to successfully explain the history of Italy first, in hopes that you will better understand the dynamics at play. Here is something you choose to dispute... Neapolitan, Lombard, Sicilian, Venetian, Sardinian, etc. are languages (not dialects).  They did not descend from the Italian language, nor are they corrupted forms of Italian.  They descended from Latin similarly to Catalan, Rumanch, Galician, etc.  In the modern world, most people think of Italy as a country that has "always been there." But please remember that Italy was NOT a country until 1860. Before this, existed the Kingdom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, etc. In these individual kingdoms included their own languages, cultures, customs, histories, and in some cases, banks, currencies, armies and navies. One needs to keep in mind that nearly three thousand years of documented history existed in this area of the Mediterranean basin before the Italian state was born in 1860!

For the above mentioned reasons, the linguistic situation in present day, modern Italy is a very complex issue. There were pre-Romance languages that existed before the Roman Empire spread its Latin language. Later, Latin broke down into different variations across different regions. Complicating this factor is that in the north, non Romance languages like Germanic, Slavic, and Gallic advanced. In the south, Spanish, French, and non Romance languages like Albanian and Greek added their characteristics, and in some cases replacing the Latin variations. Finally, in the islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica), there was Spanish, French, Greek, Arabic, and Turkish influence amongst others of less dominance.

How can all of these languages, variations, and dialects be organized, if they can even be organized at all? One highly respected reference is Ethnologue. One of the most respected sources of linguistic classification in Italy is Giovan Battista Pellegrini and his "Carta dei dialetti d'Italia", 1977, based on the work of "Sprach-und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz", 1928-1940. Click on the above link to see the map of how the languages are organized. Not surprisingly, the map closely follows the historical development of pre-Italy. The Kingdom of Sicily, including the peninsular portions of Calabria, and Puglia (Salento), compose the "Extreme Southern Language Group" referred to as Sicilian language. The Kingdom of Naples, including the capital of Naples, surrounding Campania, northern Calabria, northern Puglia, all of Basilicata, Molise, Abruzzo, southern Marche, and southeastern Lazio, compose the "Intermediate Southern Language Group" referred to as Neapolitan language. The former Papal States, including Rome, Lazio, Umbria, and central Marche, make up the "Southern Language Group" referred to as Romanesco. The list goes on.

While there may be wide differences among the dialects in this various language groupings, this can be expected. Given the diverse cultures and histories that abound, there will always be great linguistic diversity in Italy, but the above sources adequately organize these groups. Some characteristics are more subtle than others, but cacuminal dd is a trademark of the Sicilian group, while the schwa sound makes famous Neapolitan. And based upon some of these examples, there is no reason to carve out or create subdialects or dialects from variations of languages. Ethnologue, and the above map should clearly be used as a guide for linguistic organization and classification in Italy. '''If for no other reason, these references should be used by Wikepedia to create and ensure some sort of uniformity and standardization when dealing with the complex linguistic situation in Italy today. You on the other hand offer nothing other than your own personal and biased opinions!''' --VingenzoTM 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll accept your most recent edit for the time being. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Sicilian related to Italian?
I've found some similarities between Sicilian and Italian: So, are Sicilian and Italian genetically closely related? Or are they merely a Sprachbund? 70.20.142.70 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They both have assimilations; for example, from Latin ct to tt. it-perfetto, scn-pirfettu
 * They both have geminations.
 * They both have vowels at the end of the suffixes corresponding to following in English: -ion, -al, -ar, -or, and -ile,(all I can think of) unlike some other Romance languages:
 * english - spanish - portuguese - french - italian - sicilian
 * discussion - discusión - discussão - discussion - discussione - discussioni
 * plural - plural - plural - pluriel - plurale - plurali''
 * solar - solar - solar - solaire - solare - sulari
 * color - color - cor - couleur - colore - culuri
 * facile - fácil - fácil - facile (final e is silent) - facile - facili
 * verb infintive endings: - ar, er, ir - ar, er/or, ir - er, ir, re - are, ere, ire - ari, iri
 * The plural markers of both languages are similar. They all derive from Latin nominative plurals. Latin declension
 * You will find your answer in Sicilian language.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up at the article Sicilian language and saw that the similarities between the two languages were because of the Italianism in the 18C. So Sicilian isn't related to Italian after all, right? 70.20.142.70 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are clearly related because they are part of the same language group (and closely related at that). But if you mean that Sicilian did not descend from Italian, that is correct.  They have similar but separate histories.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The word for Brit. Eng. "colour" in Portuguese is "cor", not "color". In fact, Portuguese frequently drops inter-vocalic "l" (e.g. "céu", "dor", "cor", "moinho", etc... vs Sp "cielo", "color", "dolor", "molino", etc... or French "ciel", "couleur", "douleur", "moulin", etc...), I've edited your the table above to correct that. Mbruno 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Head section shall mention no language
I am trying to rewrite the head section so as to remove the bone of contention and hopefully make it nicer to all readers. Please wait for another hour or two. My last "Save Page" may have deleted a few edits that were made in the last hour or so; I will try toput them back after the head section is OK. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, but this isn't about being nice - it's about the correctness or otherwise of making reference to a romance language in an article about romance languages. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that if we list N languages in the head section, for any N, there will always be a reader who feels that their language has been discriminated against, and will then edit the page to add it to the list. Then twenty other readers will fight about which language should come first, Bazoonian which has more poets or Foobarian which has more singers, or whether Pinocchian is really a language or just a minor dialect of Cucagnish. And so on.
 * Hence my salomonic proposal that the head section shall not mention any specific language. Instead we put the complete language list in the body of the article, with number of speakers and all. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi GhePeU, I think you are still missing the point. You are still referring to the Sicilian as a dialect. Do you know the frustation that you are creating to all the people that speaks sicilian in their everyday life and for the ones that will still use. I am sorry but i found it discriminatory from your side...ninu

Dialects of Italy vs Dialects of Italian
The link "Dialects of Italy" actually takes one to Dialects of Italian - these are two very different concepts! I quote from thea article:
 * Dialects of Italian are regional varieties which are closely related to  Standard Italian, while the terms Dialects of Italy is suggested for those idioms, such as Piedmontese, Lombard, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Ligurian, Venetian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, who show considerable differences in grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Many "dialects of Italy" should thus be considered distinct languages in their own right, and actually are assigned to separate branches on the Romance language family tree by Ethnologue and other academic works. However, for historical, cultural and political reasons, these idioms have not yet been given an official status, nor have they developed a unified written standard.

Following on from the above quote, a better expression would be "languages of Italy". ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the link with List of Languages of Italy - a far more appropriate term. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
It has been proposed that Languages of Oïl be renamed and moved to Langues d'Oïl. Comments and votes on Talk:Languages of Oïl, please, if you're interested. Man vyi 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dialects and Languages of Italy
I think that none of the wikipedian can decide by himself which language is a "real language" or just a dialect. The criteria most communly used is to verify the existence of the ISO 639-2 code: languages normally have it, dialects not. About the languaes spoken in the Italian territory, the following ones (listed in a strictly alphabetical order) have an ISO 639-2 code:
 * Italian (ita)
 * Friulian (fur)
 * Ladino (lad)
 * Neapolitan (nap)
 * Sardinian (srd)
 * Sicilian (scn)

You can check it:
 * List of ISO 639 codes
 * ISO 639 list

Thanks for your attention. --Giusi 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This test is true only in one direction, though: if there is an ISO code it means that someone managed to convice some international committee that the language was a real language. But if there is no code, it does not follow that it is a dialect.  Perhaps the speakers of that language didn't have the resources to lobby the committe, perhaps they didn't bother, or they missed the train to the meeting. Or perhaps the committee decided that it was not worth the trouble because there were too few speakers left. Jorge Stolfi 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. Anyway, this discussion about language/dialect is pointless, the topic has been discussed billions of times, and has been resolved within Wikipedia. Venetian, Sicilian, etc. are languages, not "dialcts". "Dialects of Italian" do exist, like "dialects of Venetian", but are something else. Jorge Stolfi 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jorge, I am totally agree with you. I posted my message because someone thought that Venetian, Sicilian, etc. are not languages and for this reason he canceled parts of the article. --Giusi 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A proposal
&bull; Folks, instead of fighting here, why don't we  work on the article? At the very least we need a listing of all the Romance languages, including Italian, Venetian, Sicilian, etc (but not their dialects -- those should go in the respective pages), with the numbers of native speakers.

BTW, note that while the children of immigrants usually speak the language of their parents, the grandchildren as a rule won't even understand it. So you can count only a small fraction of those millions of Italian immigrants who left 100 years ago. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Leftover text etc.
I've just finished copyediting the first part of the article, mainly inserting IPA tags and deleting excessive wikilinks. I guess I haven't paid attention to this page for a while, since the last part has somehow turned into a huge mess, including a section called "leftover text". The responsible person(s) should try to amend that, soon. The lists of languages would be better unified and/or placed elsewhere IMHO. On the issue of dialects and languages, may I suggest that the two terms are more often than not just politically motivated labels, and should not be cause for an argument? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% on every point. Thanks for tidying it up.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have finally cleaned up (mostly) the leftover text, and made another pass through the article. That surely added many errors, so please check and fix as you see fit. We still need to do something to improve the language lists. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Language lists
I have moved the classification trees (including the Ethnologue) to a spearate article, classification of Romance languages, and combined the geographical and alphabetical lists into one.

I propose that we avoid getting into classification disputes here, e.g. whether Galician is a Spanish or Portuguese dialect etc. However, it may be useful to combine some entries into groups, besides the dialect/parent groups that are already there. For example, we could group together any set of languages that, although not "dialects" of any other language, (a) have coevolved in neighboring areas with substantial contact, and (b) form a language continum that is more or less well-distinguished from other languages outside the group, and (c) include at most one official language. Thus perhaps most of the languages of France can be re-sorted as two groups (Oc and Oïl), and most languages of Italy into half a dozen groups (Venetian, Ligurese, Sicilian, etc.); whereas Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan would remain separate groups, and Galician may be put in yet another separate group with the other secondary languages of NW Spain. What do you think? Jorge Stolfi 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is ter = "to hold" in Portuguese?

 * ''Moved to Talk:Portuguese language Jorge Stolfi 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is tem = "there is" in Portuguese?

 * Moved to Talk:Portuguese language. Jorge Stolfi 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

portuguese
I've deleted the following:


 * European Portuguese has historically been losing the initial unstressed vowels and thus reducing syllables to consonant clusters, e.g. dirijo →.

The first i in this word is not silent in European Portuguese.

Romanesco (Italian Meridiano) Language Group
Hello friends, I have a question reguarding the Romanesco (Italian Meridiano) language group in central Italy. For reasons you see on the Romanesco page, I'm not sure how to treat its classification.

Romanesco refers to:

 * the language group of central Italy, and
 * the particular dialect of Rome and the immediate surrounding area

Different influences:

 * the language group stems from different varieties of Vulgar Latin with pre-Romance substrata
 * the particular dialect of Rome was influenced much by Tuscan in the late 1600s
 * this makes Roman dialect much closer to Italian than the other Romanesco dialects outside the city
 * Romanesco dialects outside the city are more authentic, based on Vulgar Latin of the area

Modern History, Diffusion, Romanaccio

 * the Tuscanised Roman dialect was confined to Rome and its immediate surrounding area until the 1800s
 * it spread considerably outside the city and province during the 1900s
 * between the 1920s and 1960s many settlers came from other Italian regions
 * this ultimately changed the Roman dialect
 * it was contaminated by other regional languages and dialects of Italy
 * this vulgarisation of the Roman dialect led to the negative term "Romanaccio"
 * during the 1950s the newly evolved Roman/Romanaccio dialect spread outside the city
 * Roman/Romanaccio contaminated the traditional Romanseco (non Tuscanised) dialects in central Italy
 * Roman/Romanaccio was later ghettoised and anyone who spoke it or Romanesco was stereotyped as ignorant, vulgar, lazy

Death of Roman dialect

 * it is possible that the Roman dialect died between 1970 and 1980
 * caused by social changes in the last few neighborhoods where pure Roman was spoken
 * neighborhoods in the city center, Trastevere, San Lorenzo, and Testaccio were transformed to places of commerce
 * it is the parent of Romanaccio

How to classify the language group, dialects?

 * Romanesco = Italian meridiano language group, southcentral Italy
 * Non-Traditional Dialects:
 * Classical Roman - Roman vulg. Lat. influenced by Tuscan in the late 1600s (extinct 1980)
 * Romanaccio - Class. Roman, influenced by other dialects/regional languages (evolved 1920-1960)
 * Traditional Dialects:
 * Laziale Centro-Settentrionale
 * Umbro Settentrionale
 * Umbro Meridionale-Occidentale e Viterbese
 * Umbro Meridionale-Orientale
 * Marchigiano Centrale Anconitano
 * Marchigiano Centrale Maceratese
 * Cicolano-Reatino-Aquilano

Since I'm translating these things in English, I'm unsure how to proceed. I've broken down some of the components above and I think it would be the most appropriate classification. However, I'm very cautious in saying that dialetto Romano, Romanaccio, or Romanesco is a language. By today's standards, Romanaccio is not much of a language of its own. The pure Roman dialect made popular by Belli in the 1950s has long died away. I'd feel more comfortable calling Romanesco a dialect, but in the same sense, the same word is used to identify the entire language group. And as noted above, the Romanesco dialects in Lazio (outside center city Rome), Marche, and Umbria are in fact the original Romanesco dialects evolved from Vulgar Latin of the area. It was only the dialect of Rome, "Romano", also called "Romanesco" that was influenced by Tuscan and to which it became very similiar. Therefore, I want to avoid and eliminate the ambiguity in translating the language names from Italian to English. As you see, even in Italian, the language names have different meanings to different people, in different places, and are treated dissimilarly between linguists and the citizens themselves.

The problem is "language versus dialect" and the ambiguity of the word "Romanesco". I think I am doing right by this, but I'd like other persons' feedback and suggestions. With the exception of the idiom spoken in metropolitan Rome, the rest of central Italy speaks one of many Romanesco dialects. It is a language group in its own right, see map. And like Catalan, Galician, Neapolitan, Corsican, and all the other regional languages, it deserves to be recognized. I'm not advocating it's political recognition, but instead I'm advocating its recognition through this encyclopedia, since it's already linguistically recognized as the "Meridiano" language group in Italy. I will soon provide examples of the various literatures written in the different varieties of Romanesco. But please post your thoughts, suggestions, and ideas, so that I can make the English version of this article informative, concise, and least complicated as possible. --Massimino 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the differences between so-called "classical" Romano and Romanaccio are negligible when compared to the overall Tuscan influences on Romano (dating from the 16th century at least). The rural Laziale dialects are more conservative, e.g. they preserved many features of their Oscan substratum.  Robotchoir 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The origin of Romance

 * Initially the "Roman language" would only refer to Langue d'oïl, but it was eventually generalized by scholars to describe all languages derived from Latin.

Gonzalo de Berceo (ca. 1190–1264) spoke about román paladino. --Error 01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Map
The map excludes Cajun and Acadian French. I realise this is probably carried over from the original French map, but they probably should be included, since significant numbers of native speakers still speak these in the relevant areas. —Firespeaker 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are these areas, and what is their extent? I could add them to the map if I knew where they were. Qyd(talk)23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cajun French is fairly easy (see the article for which Parishes it's spoken in). Acadian French is a bit trickier—I suppose most of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, northern Maine, and Eastern Quebec count, but different areas have different speaker population densities. —Firespeaker 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded this map. South-central Louisiana, Maine and western canada colored in light blue. I recently found out that many canadian provinces don't legally define the official languages, and as such the federal concept of english+french as official languages prevails. This map has Ontario designated as having french as official language (I beleive this is an error, as Quebec and New Brunswick are the only canadian provinces where french has official language status. Tell me what you think about the uploaded map, and if everyone agrees, I can replace the old one with this. Qyd(talk)15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not being sure about the significance of the difference between light and dark blue, I can't tell you what I think. I also might not be the expert to ask anyway, since most of my knowledge about these dialects of French is annecdotal, though a certain amount is first-hand. —Firespeaker 11:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * French is an official language of Louisiana; if dark blue represents official status, it should be dark. The Jade Knight 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ontario should not be blue at all. French is the only official language of Quebec, so it is OK that Quebec is dark blue. New Brunswick is the only bilingual province, so New Brunswick could be light blue. French is along with English technically the official languages of the territories of Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon, but not many people there speak French. Cato


 * French is NOT an official language of Louisiana; it has no official language. The same is true of New Mexico, so it should not be dark green.  Honestly, the entire American southwest could be light blue, as Spanish is commonly spoken throughout. 66.126.191.98 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The map should indicate the signifigant French-speaking minority in northern Maine. There are around 80,000 Francophones in that region. And Ontario should absolutely be blue, at least part of it. There are half a million French speakers who live there.CharlesMartel 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Vocabulary Table
I suggest we include a vocabulary table comparing the different Romance languages, similar to the one found in the Germanic languages article.Mbruno 02:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Great idea! I thought I would make a start here (copying that one directly) and we could fill in the bit we can until it is ready to transfer across. Other words that highlight interesting differences (or similiraties) can easily be added if need be. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  03:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * for the sake of space, show only the singular masculine for all adjectives; English infinitive shown without preposition.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This has gone out of alignment - please wait while I fix it up! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. Man vyi 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we almost ready to plonk in the main article? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which meaning of That is intended? Man vyi 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Adjectival. But if it's too ambiguous, it could be better to leave out.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok - I think it's time to finally include this table in the main article - additional languages can be added at any time - but for the moment I will delete those to which nothing is shown. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Italian in the map
I have no idea why Italian has the distribution it has on the map. First, in Lybia Italian may be the language of the former colonial power but is no longer spoken, taught, or understood. English is the second language of Lybia. Similarly I strongly doubt there is any presence of Italian in Somalia or Ethiopia at the present time. The light green for the southern US and Philippines looks confusingly like the colour for Italian.

Atlantic Islands
The Atlantic Islands where Portuguese (Azores and Madeira) and Castillian (Canary islands) are spoken are not represented on the map. This should be corrected. The Ogre 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Romanic
Shouldn´t it be Romanic languages ????


 * I agree, or Latin languages or Latinate or Latinic or whatever. This has peeved me for some time as well. But, we can't change convention. At least not here.


 * It has always been Romance languages. I never heard of Romanic languages. --Chris S. 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are a few linguists, believers in taxonomic neatness I guess, who like to call them "Romanic languages". As yet, the great majority takes no notice. So, no reason to change here, I would say. Andrew Dalby 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Romance" is a term used in this context for centuries. 213.13.86.69 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'Category:Romance peoples' includes the article Latin peoples (to which Romance peoples redirects) that states: "those European linguistic-cultural groups and their descendants all over the world that speak Romance languages. The Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin." There is no distinction on Wikipedia between Romance languages and Romanic languages (the latter redirects to the first). I do wonder however, whether the term 'Romance languages' might reflect a rather romantic (see Romanticism) view [thus indeed centuries old] on the (in particular French) romance genre of writing and reputedly romantic style of speech about romance (see romantic love), versus 'Romanic languages' as a more technically oriented term [and therefore more appropriate at present]; in which case we should follow the example by the 'Romance peoples': redirect [by a simple move] 'Romance languages' towards 'Romanic languages'. — SomeHuman 2 Dec2006 18:54-19:12 (UTC)


 * As stated, "Romance" is the standard term in linguistics. This has got nothing to do with romanticism, which is a much more recent term than 'Romance' in the sense of "popular Latin". See also the disambiguation page Romance. FilipeS 19:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, originally 'Romance' meant Roman-like, from Roman. Its connotations about love, as in 'a romance', had to be more recent. But those are most prevalent in daily English and relatively few non-linguistically trained people without knowledge of foreign literature will immediately think of the etymological origin. One should verify whether 'Romanic languages' has sufficient usage in present-time, recently created scientific, encyclopaedic, works; if so that would then be 'our' preference. — SomeHuman 2 Dec2006 19:26 (UTC)

past imperfect?
past imperfect DĪCEBAT "he was saying". is this past imperfect(?) or past continuous ?

There was no dictinction between imperfect and continuous in Latin. FilipeS 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolute verbal forms
Italian retains some absolute verbal forms as participio assoluto e gerundio assoluto in both two tenses --Philx 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers, consistancy
Quote:

The number 16

Romanian constructs the names of the numbers 11–19 by a regular pattern which could be translated as "one-over-ten", "two-over-ten", etc.. All the other Romance languages use a pattern like "one-ten", "two-ten", etc. for 11–15, and the pattern "ten-and-seven, "ten-and-eight", "ten-and-nine" for 17–19. For 16, however, they split into two groups: some use "six-ten", some use "ten-and-six":

At what point is onze, douze, treize, quatorze, quinze considered consistant with all the other Romance languages (minus Romanian, as mentioned)? It's the same pattern as seize. The same can be said for Spanish, once, doce, trece, quatorce, quince. Also, Italian is not as easy as the Spanish "diez y seis" (pardon lack of accents). There are changes to the numbers to allow better flow; examples:

4 --> 14 quattro --> quattordici

5 --> 15 cinque --> quindici

To say that Italian, French, and Spanish all follow the same pattern of "one-ten" is absolutely absurd and not true at all. (How has no one picked up on this?)

Additionally, the French language has a characteristic of the word "and" (et) being inserted only before "one" (un)  So there is a difference between vingt et un and vingt-deux. (Although it's not used in 81). French also uses an insane way to count, (this I'll never understand) but there's soixante for 60, soixante-dix for 70. 80 is quatre-vingt and 90 is quatre-vingt-dix. No other language to my knowledge (though I could def. be wrong) counts like that. Four times twenty plus ten? I think that is definitely noteworthy. It definitely causes trouble for beginners, unlike Spanish and Italian. (So sorry I don't know much at all about Portugese or other Romance languages)

Italian is also different in that it is more "4 and 10" vs the Spanish "10 and 4." (If you like to be technical!)


 * The Spanish word is "dieciséis", not "diez y seis". Spanish 4 (cuatro) --> 14 (catorce), 5 (cinco) --> 15 (quince) are simplified forms of quattuordecim (quattuor + decem) and quindecim (quinque + decem), respectively. FilipeS

Yes, I know about my Spanish, I was separating it to show the roots. As far as it being a simplified form, well that's all fine and dandy, but what the article says doesn't represent that at all. It makes it sound like I should be able to count like the Chinese do, very predictably. Retailmonica


 * You wrote above "[...] onze, douze, treize, quatorze, quinze [...] It's the same pattern as seize.". Could you explain better what you meant by that?


 * As for "To say that Italian, French, and Spanish all follow the same pattern of "one-ten" is absolutely absurd and not true at all." I still disagree. The basic pattern is the same, give or take some minor phonetic transformations. Particularly when compared to the "one-over-ten" pattern of Romanian, or to the "six-ten" pattern of French. FilipeS 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When you count in French, after 10, it's not like "ten plus one." After the number 16, you have this pattern, yes. Dix-sept, dix-huit, dix-neuf. But where do you find "dix-un" ? You don't. How can you say that "seize" is some strange number, but "onze", "douze", "treize", "quatorze", and "quinze" aren't?  Futhermore, a little change in phonetiques? "cinq" and "quinze" don't sound much like each other. Retailmonica


 * Pronunciation changes with time (that's how new languages are born). You have to go back to the Latin source, to recognize the pattern. FilipeS

---

Here is what is going on through the numbers 11-19. I'm assuming above that "quindecim" is the Latin form (Vulgar or otherwise) of the number 15. The Romance languages over time as I understand have all dropped intervocalic consonants along the way to differing degrees, and it appears final consonants as well (which in my non-professional opinion led to the decline in cases). So with that, drop the final 'm' common through at least Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. So now we have "quindeci." Italian then has some kind of vowel change that leaves us with "quindici." Now for the other three, drop the "de" so that we get "quinci." Now for French, the ending becomes "ze" and the word is "quinze." For Spanish and Portuguese, from "quinci" the last "i" beccomes an "e." So the words in both languages in "quince." All Romance languages (I guess except Romanian) have this pattern for 11-15. It just so happens that Italian (and perhaps whatever subset of Romance languages it belongs to) did not drop this 'de' the way that Spanish, Portuguese, French, and their sibling languages did. Now for the numbers 17-19, in all languages they follow some kind of 10+X pattern. In Spanish, we have "diecisiete," in Portuguese "dezessete," French "dix-sept," and Italian "diciassette." The problem is that in some languages, 16 is derived directly from Latin as 11-15 are, and in others it follows the 10+x pattern. I hope that clarifies things. NB: In some dialects/regions, there are words for 70, 80, and 90 which I reserve the right to use. They are septante, huitante (more common) or octante (less common), and nonante.


 * Right, except for one thing: the Portuguese word for 15 is quinze like in French, not quince like in Spanish. Well, two things: Portuguese dezesseis is a modern innovation. The older form is dezasseis. FilipeS 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vocab Table revisited
I am finding the additional notes to the vocab table a bit of a distraction - they are of interest, but they impact on the compactness of the table itself - any ideas on how to fix? footnotes perhaps? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just footnoted it up. What do people think? Man vyi 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks much cleaner - thanks! I'm thinking it might even be useful spreading over two columns so the page doesn't run as long - I'm happy to try if someone else doesn't get to it first.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  13:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A footnote to the column for Portuguese has the following "U: only in ulo/ula". Well, I had never seen the words ulo/ula before in my life! On the other hand, I do know that u was quite common in Medieval Portuguese. FilipeS

Linguistic Features Inherited from...
Indo-European
 * The article says:
 * "As members of the Indo-European (IE) family, Romance languages have a number of features that are shared by other IE subfamilies ...These features include:...Verbs are not inflected according to the gender of the subject (unlike Arabic and Hebrew, for example)..."


 * This is not true at all. While it is true that verbs in Romance languages don't inflect for gender, they do in Hindi, and I imagine many of its sibling languages. Hindi is an Indic/Aryan language that is a sister group to the Persian/Iranian languages, which belong to the Indo-Iranian language family which is a family of Indo-European. I don't know whether this feature derived from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or from somewhere else over time, but the above statement is misleading.

Vulgar Latin
 * The article says:
 * "In this regard, the distance between any modern Romance language and Latin is comparable to that between Modern English and Old English. While speakers of French, Spanish or Italian, for example, can quickly learn to see through the spelling changes and thus recognize many Latin words, they will often fail to understand the meaning of Latin sentences."


 * Again, I find this untrue. Old English was purely a Germanic language, and Modern English is still Germanic with a huge influx of French and Latin words and spelling rules. Because of this, modern Romance languages have much more in common with Latin than modern English with Old English. Furthermore, being a native speaker, I can't recognize words from Old English based off spelling.

— Odinlast99 23 Aug2006 10:48 (UTC) was neither signed nor dated


 * All European languages have had a "huge influx of French and Latin words". The uniqueness of English in this regard is often overstated. As for spelling, linguistically that doesn't prove anything, does it? FilipeS


 * I think you might be right, for my opinion those info might be corrected --Philx 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Odinlast99 states "...the Indo-Iranian language family which is a family of Indo-European". If 'family' means 'having a common ancestor', his quote from the article remains correct; if it means 'is a branch of Indo-European', his remark is most valid.
 * The most common Germanic languages are some Scandinavian ones with very little Latin influence; German with a small influence, Dutch with more though still limited Latin influences, and English of which I read that 3/4 of its vocabulary is of Latin instead of Old English (or other Germanic) influence – that (even if it were an exaggeration) is quite unique. I don't see Odinlast99 trying to prove anything linguistically by spellings, I assume he simply refers to transposing characters or taking spelling rules into account so as to facilitate recognizing a lexeme and/or the morphological nature of its derivate. — SomeHuman 2 Dec2006 21:03-21:20 (UTC)

Please add these extinct Romance languages
According to the 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica article on romance languages that I read, the northern limit of where Romance languages are spoken was in present-day southern Germany. From the 5th to the late 9th centuries A.D, a Celto-Roman cultural presence along with a language known as "Allemannic" thrived in Bavaria, Swabia, Franconia and Baden-Wurttemberg before the advent of Germanization by 1000 A.D. Some surviving documents and manuscripts of an extinct Romance language are on exhibit in regional museums across southern Germany. I think the information is worth while adding to the wikipedia article, though I should examine the research on the up-to-date encyclopedia britannica web page if I'm able to now. +207.200.116.72 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dual in Romance?
They have lost the dual number, retaining only singular and plural, except for the equivalent to the English word "both": "ambos" in Portuguese and Spanish, "ambdós" in Catalan and "ambii" in Romanian.

What exactly makes ambos a dual? It just means "both", and I've never seen anyone claim that English "both" is a dual! FilipeS

To have and to hold
The following was needlessly obscure:
 * The verbs derived from Latin HABĒRE, TENĒRE, and ESSE are used differently for the concepts of "to have" (something), "to have" (auxiliary verb for complex tenses), and "there is" (existence statements). If we use T for TENĒRE, H for HABĒRE, and E for ESSE'', the various languages classify as follows:
 * TTH: Portuguese, Galician.
 * THH: Spanish, Catalan.
 * HHH: Occitan, French.
 * HHE: Romanian, Italian


 * For example:
 * English: I have, I have done, there is
 * Portuguese: (eu) tenho, (eu) tenho feito, há (TTH)
 * Spanish: (yo) tengo, (yo) he hecho, hay (THH)
 * Catalan: (jo) tinc, (jo) he fet, hi ha (THH)
 * French: j'ai, j'ai fait, il y a (HHH)
 * Italian: (io) ho, (io) ho fatto, c'è (HHE)
 * Romanian: (eu) am, (eu) am făcut, este (or e) (HHE)
 * Friulian: (jo) o ai, (jo) o ai fat, a 'nd è, al è
 * Most of these languages also use the TENĒRE verb for the sense of "to hold", e.g. Italian tieni il libro, French tu tiens le livre, Catalan tens el llibre, Spanish tienes el libro, Romanian ţine cartea, Galician Tes o libro, Friulian Tu tu tegnis il libri ("you hold the book"). However, Portuguese normally uses a different verb for that sense, usually segurar (from the Vulgar Latin ASSECURARE, "to make secure"). On the other hand, Brazilian Portuguese informally uses the T verb in the existential sense, e.g. tem água no copo instead of há água no copo ("there is water in the glass"). Also, archaic Galician-Portuguese used H in permanent states eu hei um nome (I have a name, i.e. for all my life) and T in non-permanent ones eu tenho um livro (I have a book, i.e. perhaps tomorrow have not).

I suppose someone rewrote it this way because, if a modern speaker of Portuguese wants to translate "to hold", he will use segurar most of the time, rather than ter. Nevertheless, ter can mean "to hold" sometimes. An example is "Tenho um livro nas mãos", which I would not hesitate in translating as "I'm holding a book in my hands". Also, if we're going to have these scruples about words whose most common meaning has changed somewhat since classical Latin, then Portuguese should not be the only casualty. In Spanish, too, tener does not mean "to hold", most of the time. However, my interpretation of this section is that it is concerned with the structure of the compound tenses of Romance languages. The literal meaning of the auxiliary verbs is unimportant. The're not being used by themselves in these examples, they're being used as auxiliaries. FilipeS 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Words for "more"
This section uses the Italian term mai ("never") as a derivation from Latin magis: while this is true, it is not very significative as an example because the meaning is not strongly related. Also, the explanation given (that it is only used in the phrase "non... mai") is definitely wrong: for example "London is the biggest city I have ever seen" in Italian translates as "Londra e' la piu' grande citta' che io abbia mai visto". I changed the example to maggiore (meaning greater), which I think is much more significative and comes from the same root as magis, but someone kept changing it to mai. (sorry for the apostrophes instead of accents, not my keyboard)


 * I was the one who reverted your change the first time around. I'm not sure what were the other reverts you talked about. As far as I know, the immediate etymon of Italian maggiore is Latin major, which corresponds to Spanish mayor, Portuguese maior, etc., all of which mean "bigger", not "more".


 * Your remark about the uses of mai is pertinent, though. As far as I know, non... mai means "no more", but it is true that the word can't be translated as "more" in the example you give. FilipeS 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mai means literally "never", but differences between the usage of negations in Italian and in English make the translation a bit different. I have no idea however in which cases it can translate to "no more", and being Italian I should. Speaking of maggiore, it does indeed come from maior which shares the same root as magis, so in facts it's not too exact but definitely more significative as an example; I'll look for another word deriving from magis as a more fitting and correct example.


 * I think you're right about the translation of mai, and I misunderstood the example given in the article. I still don't think we should put words that don't mean "more" in a section titled "words for 'more'", though. It would be better just to delete mai from it. FilipeS 11:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Liaison in Portuguese?
This was recently added to the article:
 * Although falling into the second category, Portuguese also makes use of this same liaison, allowing final s (when preceding a vowel in the next word) to be read as a z.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think you only call it liaison when the consonant is silent some of the time (which is not the case in Portuguese). Can anyone confirm/refute? FilipeS 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just removed this (not because it's false but because it didn't bear directly on the point under discussion, classifying the RLs wrt the two broad strategies of plural formation). You are right, this is not strictly speaking a case of liaison, but some other sandhi phenomenon ("consonant mutation", if you like…) CapnPrep 11:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 You're making me feel watched. ;-) FilipeS 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics Features section: suggestions for improvement
I think this section could be improved by adding a detailed discussion of:
 * What happened to the verb tenses, moods, etc., of Classical Latin in the Romance languages: some remained mostly unaltered, a few were completely lost, several were repurposed, and several were reconstructed as periphrases.
 * The new verb forms created by Vulgar Latin / Romance: the conditional, the future subjunctive, the anterior past (passé antérieur, in French), the near future (futur proche)...
 * More recent morpological innovations of the Romance languages, such as progressive aspect forms.
 * Perfectivity in the Romance languages. FilipeS 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers
Where does the number '2 000 000' for the speakers of Lombard come from? I don't mean it is necessarily wrong, but how has it been estimated? On the basis of the 1990 census I estimated some 70% of the population in the Lombard-speaking valleys of southern Graubünden (Bergell/Bregaglia, Misox/Mesolcina, Puschlav/Poschiavo), Switzewrland, and some 40% of the population of Ticino, Switzerland. Estimates for Italy are far more difficult, as Italian censuses are not very informative on this issue.--Jorgengb 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

T-V distinction in Latin
A recent edit deleted the following paragraph from "Features inherited from Classical Latin": "* Most of them have a T-V distinction, although in many cases it has been considerably transformed since the Middle Ages." I may be mistaken, but I believe late classical / medieval Latin did have a T-V distinction: tu was informal, and vos was both plural and singular formal. FilipeS 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised I never heard of it. Is there a reference I could look at? Rwflammang 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the following at T-V distinction: FilipeS 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"The expressions T-form and V-form were introduced by Brown and Gilman (1960), based on the initial letters of these pronouns in Latin, tu and vos. In Latin, 'tu' was originally the singular, and 'vos' the plural, with no distinction for honorific or familiar. According to Brown and Gilman, usage of the plural to the Roman emperor began in the fourth century AD. They mention the possibility that this was because there were two emperors at that time (in Constantinople and Rome), but also mention that 'plurality is a very old and ubiquitous metaphor for power'. This usage was extended to other powerful figures, such as Pope Gregory I (590-604). But they note that it was only between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries that the norms for the use of T- and V-forms crystallized."

Talk:English_language
'Nuff said. Rhode Islander 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)