User talk:Mergulho

link title

Hi
Hi Mergulho, before we start on an edit war, which we might. Wanted to discuss your changes, with you. I actually had a similar opinion to you before and pushed a similar line in a couple of articles but eventually was convinced with sources that I was wrong. Paso al español: al parecer el castellano moderno tiene tanto de Mozárabe toledano como de dialectos mas norteños. La idea de que el castellano proviene de Burgos tiene mucho de mito. Yo tambien creía que era así hasta que tuve la oportunidad de indagar en el tema. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hola Asilah1981, te creo que asi es y no voy a insistir. Sin embargo, puesto que se trata de rebatir una idea bastante extendida, y puesto que ya has estudiado el tema, apreciaria que añadieras algunas referencias (que por otra parte me interesaria bastante leer).Mergulho (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Tampoco soy un experto, pero como precisamente tuve una discusión con otro editor sobre este tema (yo citando las glosas silenses etc que era lo que me sonaba...) estuve tratando de informarme y cambié de opinión al respecto. Creo que esto es bastante interesante. http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/abadnebot/espagnolprimitivo.htm Asilah1981 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Gracias por el link. Continuo en inglés antes de que nos acaben llamando la atencion. This is certainly a fascinating topic and the consideration of Spanish as a mix between Castilian dialects and Mozarabic intriguing. However, I am afraid that after further researh I cannot find strong support for this. The sentence “including the Kingdom of Toledo, upon whose romance vernacular old Spanish was conformed” as it is phrased somewhat implies that Spanish originated from the mozarabic dialect spoken in Toledo and not from more northern varieties, as more commonly understood and in opposition to most published research.
 * Even the provided article cites: “Lo más probable en definitiva, es que entre los mozárabes toledanos y andaluces del siglo XIII las cancioncillas populares conservasen un arcaísmo poético tradicional que las mantendría diferenciadas del habla diaria mozárabe, cuando ésta sin duda se hallaría ya muy influida por el habla castellana y leonesa de los recientes reconquistadores” Impliying that the spoken variety was already very much influenced by the northern romances.
 * Ralph Penny (a British historian and hence of little suspition of Castilian nationalism) states in his A history of the Spanish Language: “At first typical of the speech of the Burgos area of southern Cantabria, Castilian linguistic characteristics were carried south, southeast and southwest, in part by movement of population, as Castilians settled in reconquered territories, and in part by the adoption of Castilian features by those whose speech was originally different.
 * Also: “The contact between Castilian and Mozarabic produced some effects upon Castilian, largely restricted to borrowing of Mozarabic vocabulary” Certainly the Castilian of this time was not homogeneous, and some influence of mozarabic is expected: “Thus, the late twelfth-century Auto de los reyes magos reveals features of the speech of Toledo (perhaps due to contact with Mozarabic) not shared with the rest of the kingdom, while the Poema de mio Cid displays a number of characteristics which locate it in the east of Castile”
 * And while it’s true that the new standard for the Spanish language undertaken by Alfonso X was based on the Toledo variety: “it is reasonable to assume that the new supraregional literary standard was based upon the speech of the upper classes of Toledo, a form of speech which owned many of its features to varieties spoken in the Burgos area”.
 * And while this new litterary form (castellano drecho) gained an enormous weight in the history of Spanish from this point onwards, the influence of the Burgos variety continued being very strong, as its innovative features (loss of initial f, merging of v and b, confusion between silibants) became eventually prevalent http://habilis.udg.edu/~info/INS/Estandarizaci%C3%B3n.pdf several centuries later.
 * Finally, the nationalist idea of a reduced Castilian variety as the sole source of the resulting Spanish language has been rebuted many times, as the influence of neighboring romances such as Leonese and Aragonese, and even Galician and Catalan, are well attested: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/ifo/publicaciones/15_cl.pdf
 * I am afraid that this is not the case with Toledan Mozarabic, at least by lack of enough knowledge about this dialect.
 * In conclusion, I think the aforementioned sentence is largely misleading if not simply innacurate. The northern varieties seem to have been predominant in the formation of the language, or at least the contrary has not been proven. Also, if anything the new variety was based on an upper class speech spoken in the city of Toledo and not a vernacular romance of a kingdom that extended further south. The focus of the article in question is in any case not the discussion about the origins of the language but its proven Arabic influences. Therefore I will proceed to remove the sentence as its removal does not hinder at all the coherence of the paragraph. Nonetheless this was an interesting reading and I do not deny that the original romance spoken in Toledo during its taifa Kingdom must have had some influence in Castilian that is to this day not well understood. Mergulho (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this Mergulho! Very interesting what you have come up with. I guess there is no clear cut answer to this question. In my opinion, the question of what "Mozarabic" is also key. The name sounds very alien but it would be wrong to be seen as a separate language which died out, more of a dialectical continuum with romance speeches further north, which was absorbed rather than extinguished. Toledo was the capital of Castile between 1065 and the times of Alfonso X in the 13th century, when Spanish was systematized and expanded throughout the realm. Do you think that in those two hundred years, the Toledo speech had a limited influence on modern Spanish? Two key questions: Do we have any examples of real written Castilian prior to the conquest of Toledo? And also what about Arabisms? Castilian Arabisms are slightly higher in number than in Portuguese and Valencian. And much much more than in Galician and Catalan. I think its about 8% of the entire dictionary. Does this not demonstrate Toledo Mozarabic to be a formative influence?


 * Well this is something to discuss with Jotamar. We had a 6 month low-level edit war where I basically argued something similar to what you are saying. His input would be useful since he is the most active wikipedian in all of these articles.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just received my notification about this discussion. To make my position better understood, I'll copy-paste one of my editions in the Spanish WP: Según la tesis de Ramón Menéndez Pidal, el habla romance de toda esta zona [Burgos] tuvo una gran influencia, especialmente en fonética, en el romance hablado en la ciudad de Toledo, a partir del cual se creó el primer estándar escrito del español en el siglo XIII. Sin embargo, otros autores, como Manuel Criado de Val, consideran que el mozárabe hablado en Toledo antes de la conquista castellana, mal conocido, ha sido más importante en la formación del español. I hope this clarifies things a little bit. --Jotamar (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input Jotamar. This will probably continue being an academic debate for a long time, unless new testimonies of the romances spoken at the time in both places appear. In any case, one of the difficulties lies in the fact that both dialects were probably not so different to begin with, as pointed out by Asilah1981. That being said, the possibility of the northern dialect being prevalent would be a reflection (I think) of what happened to the Portuguese language, which in a similar way was standardized in Lisbon more than a century after the incorporation of the city to new born Portuguese Kingdom. In this case however, the northern variety (later to become Galician) remained relatively independent because of the now independent state of Portugal, but the linguistic differences between north and south at this point in time were very few. The question raised by Asilah about the amount of arabisms today as compared to other iberian languages is a different one, as the Castilian expansion towards the south lasted much longer and included territories (such as Granada in the 15th century) that had had the time to arabize to a much higher degree. Mergulho (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw Mergulho if you want a user to be notified of your comment, you have to write his name as I have yours, otherwise they won't know unless they are following your talk page. Saludos!Asilah1981 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New message from Obi2canibe
Obi2canibe (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carles Puigdemont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Together for Catalonia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cortegada Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)