User talk:Gori Andrea

Syntactic gemination
Please keep in mind that claims such as many Italian speakers considering RS to be a pronunciation error and so on in the "Syntactic gemination" article need at least one solid reference. Anecdotal chat (even if some of it weren't contradictory), and even on a site as respectable as the Crusca, does not constitute adequate sourcing. Keep in mind also that differences should be resolved in Talk, not by serial reversion for no expressed reason. // In your effort, you'll also have to deal with this, from the Italian article on Raddoppiamento fonosintattico: Poiché è regolare nei dialetti toscani e centrali, fa parte della pronuncia normativa (ortoepia) dell'italiano standard, tanto da essere insegnato nelle scuole di dizione, e rintracciabile nella grafia univerbata di diverse locuzioni fisse: affinché, appunto, appena, davvero, sicché, soprattutto... Googling corso di dizione will turn up results such as these that corroborate the obvious, i.e. that RS is a defining feature of Standard Italian:

http://www.attori.com/dizione/Diz12.htm 12 - Il Rafforzamento

https://lifelearning.it/corso-online/corso-online-dizione-italiana-le-regole-di-una-buona-pronuncia-per-lavorare-con-la-voce/?ref=94927&campaign=dizione-carollo&fbclid=IwAR0YlRix6c0AbLMEN7a3pG3YUyjW2w1Iy-ys2brJBFvxQe45d38re-4uliY Acquisirai la conoscenza dei fenomeni di rafforzamento sintattico.

Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Barefoot through the chollas, let me introduce myself. I am an Italian high school teacher, I have restored the information you removed because it was correct, true information and I know what I am talking about. You are not Italian, are you? But I have noticed that among your edits there are also pages concerning Italian names, words or language in general. I suppose that you either have studied Italian or have Italian ancestors, maybe both. But you do not live in Italy, so perhaps you have a wrong idea about this issue. Let me explain the facts: syntactic gemination is a typical character in Italian and a few other languages, but it is the kind of character that the average Italian does not know about, unlike people speaking another language and learning Italian as a foreign language. You have inserted a link and quoted a text, but you have not understood what exactly is that link and what exactly says that text. It is about a "corso di dizione" (diction course). Professionists of the voice, such as dubbers and theatre actors, attend such courses and learn exactly the orthoepy of our language. You would never listen to an Italian dubbed film and hear a Northern or Southern pronunciation, but always the standard pronunciation, which is the Italian spoken in Florence purged from its most dialectal characters, an Italian that you can find only in dubbing and dictionaries. The paragraph you had removed was not about abstract standard Italian but actual spoken Italian. Normal schools, both public and private, are not diction schools, addressed to adults with a specifical interest for orthoepy. In no school in Italy children are taught about syntactic gemination, or standard pronunciation of Es and Os or Ss and Zs. Just consider that in hardly no low schools students are even taught about the difference between grave and acute accent when they learn to write. Syntactic gemination is not something teachers instruct their students about, not at all. I will tell you more, no Italians but the ones who have studied this phenomenon, either for their job such as theatre actors or for their university studies such as graduated in linguistics, even know about this phenomenon. I mean that Northern Italians do not know it exists and they notice it just when a Southern Italian speaks, most of times believing he is speaking wrong Italian, while Southern Italians just know unconsciously it exists only because they use it when they speak, but when they speak with a Northern Italian they notice he or she does not use it so they feel it as a dialectal character. More, nowadays also the prefessionists of the voice are using syntactic gemination lightly less than they used 50 years ago, for example they almost always avoid doubling consonants after the preposition 'da' and the conjunction 'se' and sometimes in other places too. Alas, I say, because I do use syntactic gemination when I speak as my parents were from Tuscany, and I know it is called and works like that as I have studied it at the university, I would like so much that in all Italy students at school are taught about this almost exclusively Italian phenomenon, should not they use it when they speak too, but reality it is not like that. You are free to search the net for a Northern or Southern Italian school and ask the presidency, when they will open again in september, if in their Italian programmes they teach syntactic gemination to students: they will tell you not and, in 70% or 80% of cases, they will ask you what syntactic gemination is. To conclude, that paragraph might be not excellently sourced but says a totally true verity, removing it is not forbidden but would mean not to give readers one more piece of correct information about spoken language. Best regards, G.A.
 * Well, we're making a little progress, in that you've actually responded. Now, try not to miss the point: it matters not a whit what you or I or anyone else can recount anecdotally; one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that, especially in the case of strong claims, respectable sources that readers can consult are required. If you can't find a clear statement or good leads in this article: Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Loporcaro, Michele. 2005. The sound pattern of Standard Italian, as compared with the varieties spoken in Florence, Milan and Rome. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35: 131–151, another obvious place to look is Galli de’ Paratesi, Nora. 1984. Lingua toscana in bocca ambrosiana. Tendenze verso l'italiano standard: un'inchiesta sociolinguistica. Bologna: Il Mulino. The full bibliography of possibilities is huge, though, and it may take some time to locate studies that uphold your contentions, if such studies exist. In the meantime, I trust you'll be responsible enough to remove the unsubstantiated claims from the Syntactic Gemination article. Well-referenced description can be inserted at any time -- and, if you like, I'd be happy to help polish expression in English. (And again, if you want to take this on, the obvious place to start doing so is the Italian article Raddoppiamento fonosintattico, which claims precisely the opposite of what you do, and where contributors presumably have life-long in-country experience just as you do. You have a perfectly legitimate opening there, in that the claims are totally unreferenced.) [imbokkalluːɸo] Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have read only now, sorry for the delay of my reply. I could not find a readable text of the second source you mentioned, but I found the first and I did not read anything about syntactic gemination taught at school. I think there are no sources reporting every argument studied in Italian schools, if any there would be anyway no sources reporting what is not studied in Italian schools. The lack of a sufficiently strong source about a fact does not make such a fact wrong, does it? In the linked pages of the Accademia della Crusca forum some participants wonder if it is taught in Italian schools (which means they did not learn it at school or they would not have wondered it), some say they doubt it is, some remind about old teachers who used to teach it in Tuscany, some others affirm it is not part of scholastic education and children learn to use it or not depending only on the persons they imitate before going to school. A lot of forums and blogs are used as sources in this encyclopedy, while a lot of information is not even strongly sourced but still kept. I have read the Italian page "Raddoppiamento sintattico" and it talks about dictions schools where it is learnt, not ordinary schools. I have read also the page "Dizione della lingua italiana" (Italian language diction) where it is written in the first section after the introduction that standard pronunciation is not taugh at school and that at school standard pronunciation is just not used. The full paragraph has not even got a source but no Italian user has ever contested it, I think because we Italians know it is true, we all went to school and nobody tried teaching us the standard pronunciation reported in dictionaries. The sentence you would like to be removed consists just in two lines saying something consequential to what is written above in the page: this phenomenon is correct in standard Italian, it exists in Central and Southern Italy but not in Northern Italy; if Northern Italians were taught about it at school of if they wanted to speak Italian correctly they would use it too but they do not, and since it is not taugh even in Southern Italy they do not know it is not a dialectal character but a correct Italian language element. Italians who use it have not learn it at school but acquired this feature hearing theyr relatives, same for Italians who do not use it. Plus, both Northern and Southern Italians do not prononuce make mistakes in the standard pronunciations of words (E, O, S, Z) since Italy was united because they do not learn it at school, the ones who do not make mistakes have learnt orthopy in specific courses when they were already adults. It is not lack of sources, it is ovbiousness, in the page it is said that syntactic gemination is used in certain zones and not in others, if it was taught at school there would not be such a difference, the fact it is not taught at school is the explanation of the reason for this difference. Besides this we have the Accademia della Crusca forum and the Italian page about Italian language diction. I do not understand this animosity towards those two lines who add correct information, sufficiently sourced in my opinion. By the way, nice Tuscan transcription of "in bocca al lupo" :-) G.A.
 * The observation that RS is not normally mentioned in schools, much less taught, is true, and both banal enough and sufficiently well known that (IMO) it needs no sourcing. The question regarding it is another: relevance to the focus of the article. But if it's necessary to mention it, it may be possible to weave it into the narrative unobtrusively.
 * The strong claims that do require solid references are these: many Italian speakers consider it to be a pronunciation error and other speakers try to avoid it in formal speech. As verifiable (or falsifiable) assertions of sociolinguistic attitudes above the level of conscious awareness, those need documented corroboration in any case, but especially since they run counter to the observation of RS being standard as well as a focus of diction courses. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is more reasonable. Well, we can agree about maintaining the first part till the semicolon. Do you think it is necessary that the following two sentences are both removed? Maybe we could keep the second part about Northern speakers who do not try to acquire and Southern speakers who try to avoid it, lightly reworded perhaps. What do you think about it? G.A.