Talk:Spanish language/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It is spoken in: France, including French Overseas Departments, Communities and Territories; Canada; Belgium; Switzerland; many Western and Central African nations; Haiti; and the U.S. states of Louisiana and Maine.

Funny, isn't it? Ejrrjs | What? 17:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely clear that the opposition to the inclusion of the United States here is not based on principle, and certainly isn't being applied consistently. Clair de Lune 07:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There's all kinds of things inconsistent in Wikipedia. Our goal is to fix them, and discuss rationally how we can best do that. Pointing fingers doesn't help anything. - Taxman ^Talk 22:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

So you agree that the French language article should be edited to remove Canada, for instance, from its list of francophone countries? Grace Note 07:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I came here as a result of this page being listed at WP:RFC, so I'm offering my two cents. My opinion is that the U.S. should be listed as a country in which Spanish is spoken; the percentage of the U.S. population that is Spanish-speaking is relatively high, about 8% according to Ethnologue, which is about the same as the population of Paraguay that is Spanish-speaking. Saying "the U.S. is a country in which Spanish is spoken" is not the same as saying "the U.S. is a Spanish-speaking country" (which would of course be untrue). I'd also like to point out that not all Spanish speakers in the U.S. are immigrants or the children of immigrants. There are Spanish speakers in California and Texas whose families have been there since those states belonged to Mexico. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 10:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

8%?!? According to wikipedia it is 75% not 8%, with 90% speaking Guaraní. Thus in no way can Paraguay be compared to the US, SqueakBox 15:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the number of people, not the percentage. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely not, as there are far more speakers of Spanish in the US than in Paraguay (5 to 6 times as many), SqueakBox 15:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to Ethnologue, there are 186,880 speakers of Spanish in Paraguay out of a population of 6,191,368, which is actually only 3%. In the United States there are 22.4 million speakers of Spanish out of a population of 293 million, which is 7.6%. Ethnologue isn't infallible, though, and I could be persuaded their figure for Spanish speakers in Paraguay is too low. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 15:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Angr, I think you are wrong. Having been in Paraguay several times, I can tell you that Spanish is as widely spoken as Guarani... probably the site has the stats wrong. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue numbers have to be interpreted carefully. The Ethnologue only counts the first language, the language that is taught in the home.--Prosfilaes 19:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but some are claiming that the US is not Spanish-speaking at all! Grace Note 07:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had the pleasure of going to Paraguay but those figures are not credible, whereas the wikipedia figures are credible. There are lots of newspapers, etc, all in Spanish, and it is known as a Spanish speaking country, having it as an official language, etc, SqueakBox 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not defending Ethnologue's numbers, just reporting them. I'm also not in the least suggesting that Paraguay shouldn't be listed as a country in which Spanish is spoken. I agree Ethnologue can't always be trusted, so I've just called up the 2000 U.S. census figures, which show 28.1 million people over 5 years of age who speak Spanish at home in the U.S., out of a population of 262.4 million people over 5 years of age; that's 10.7%. (Even in Kansas, hardly a center of Hispanic culture, 5.5% of the population speaks Spanish at home!) In my book, that's definitely a significant enough portion of the U.S. population to warrant the inclusion of the U.S. in the list. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Which it already is, though we could include these numbers, SqueakBox 21:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I also came here via the RfC, and I also think the US should be listed. My reasoning being that the large number of Spanish speakers and the fact that a significant minority speaks it makes it logical to include it. I can understand the argument that the US does not contribute much to the culture of the Spanish-speaking world, but that's not really supposed to be the issue here, which is just the prevalence of the language. I won't get into the discussion, I'm afraid, because I have other matters to attend to on Wikipedia; but I just wanted to give you my comments, since you asked for it ;). Junes 23:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... should have looked at the time stamps better. Apparently, the matter is settled already. I think the present version, with 'significant minorities in North America' is pretty good (on the other hand, North America also includes Mexico, right? That's a bit strange) Junes 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

most of South and Central America, substantial minorities in North America, the Iberian Peninsula and enclaves and immigrant groups on all contintents

Yes this is totally wrong. It follows the ignorant idea that Mexico is part of either South America or Central America. It should say something like "most of South America except Brazil and the Guyanas, most of Central America except Belize, all of Mexico, and significant minorities in USA". I'm not sure how significant Spanish is in Canada, but probably not far behind USA. — Hippietrail 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming a very messy page... Regarding Spanish in U.S., consider these facts:

• U.S. has no federal official language.
• At state level, there are several: English, Spanish, Hawaiian and French (I don't know if there are more). Of these four, English is used as national language; Spanish is used by a sizeble part of non-immigrant population (New Mexico, for instances); Spanish is a language of the U.S., just like Welsh is a language of U.K. or Catalan of Spain.
• Real Academia de la Lengua acklowledges U.S. "Academía de la Lengua".

U.S. has a first language, which is English (just like Spanish in Spain). But, in fact, Spanish is as much a language of U.S. as French is of Canada, Catalan of Spain, or Welsh of U.K. - i.e., they are official languages of parts of the respective country. Don't forget: Spanish is official in some parts of U.S. Please, answer these arguments calmly and open-mindedly. Best regards to you all, Marco Neves 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not all excited about including the US, I'd rather say "Some US States", if that is the case. The US as a whole is not a "spanish speaking country". Furthermore, French is indeed a Federal official language of Canada, so let's not compare to that. Catalan is a regional language, accepted in Catalunya but the federal language of Spain is Spanish. I think that's an important distinction. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We shouln't compare to Canada if English were an official language of US at federal level. It isn't. In fact, federally speaking, the official status of Spanish is the same as of English (none), just like French status is the same as English in Canada (official). So, in US, the official language is decided in state-level and, in that level, Spanish is official in some states (just like English is official in only a few states). Marco Neves 20:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The situation in Spain is controversial with some in the provinces wanting their language to be the only one, especially in Basque Country, and some Spanish speakers deeply resenting this. I don't get the sense anyone is claiming parts of the US should become officially Spanish speaking. Indeed the impression I get is that hispanics who can't speak English want to but find it very hard. I think the real litmus test is what language(s) the schools teach in and what language(s) the courts function in as well as the official status of a language, which may be a different thing, SqueakBox 18:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(Please, do not call Spanish comunities "provinces". Provinces, in Spain, are another kind of division. Basque Country is a community divided in three provinces. And linguistic situation is controversial but no one denies that Spain has four official languages, although only one in the whole territory. Catalan is used in schools and courts.Marco Neves 20:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Regarding U.S., Spanish is official in New Mexico, at least. As for litmus test regarding schools and courts, well, that would mean changing lots of articles throughout Wikipedia. England used French in courts for centuries and English remained the main language. The fact is: Spanish is used by a significant number of non-immigrant people in U.S. and is official in parts of the territory. Marco Neves 20:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm spanish and basque speaker, do you know that in Spain our constitution recognizes basque, catalan and galego as different languages and it allows to use them in administration, schools... there is no controversy. Spain has an official language = Spanish, and the other languages are official in some autonomic communities (no provinces), the big difference with US, is the fact that the non spanish languages in Spain has a big culture, history and delimited zones; there are no big changes in the last 500 years in the composition of languages speaked in Spain. In US with migration and people movements the languages change a lot, and now the spanish is becoming an important language in US, more important than all together minor languages in US.--82.130.166.113 13:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The courts thing is nonsense. You can't speak Kurdish in a Turkish court. Does that mean that Kurdish is not spoken in Turkey? And Welsh was, famously so, not in use in Welsh schools until fairly recently. Did people only start speaking Welsh recently? These are all just excuses to exclude the States. Grace Note 05:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in this context, the proper way to address the importance of the relevance of the use of Spanish in courtrooms is as follows: in the US the business of the court can be carried on in any language, although in most locales it is conducted in English. That said, the business of the court must be conducted, if only via translation, in a language clearly understood by a representative of the court, and by the plaintiff[s] and defendant[s]. Therefore "excuses to exclude the States" is just as ridiculous an assertion as is the assertion that the use of Spanish in courts in the US is an "excuse to include the States". If Spanish is used in the courts, it's to ensure that someone whose knowledge of English might be insufficient to convince the court [i.e., the judge[s] ] that the plaintiff[s] and/or defendant[s] understand all the proceedings(, thus reducing the likelihood of a mistrial declaration or appeal based on "X didn't understand the language"), knows exactly what's going on ... it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that that particular criterion is, in this context, utterly irrelevant. <edit>Use of this criterion would indicate that perhaps Mordvinian should be considered an important language of the US, if a defendant could communicate reliably in only that language.</edit> Tomer ^TALK 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but in the US, some states DO have spanish as an official language (New Mexico is one, if im not mistaken). Regarding the spanish problem, it's better resolved in the Catalan or Basque page, nobody here will deny that Spanish is spoken there. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Nor English in Wales, SqueakBox 18:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In view of the last reverts on this very minor point, I'd like to point out that the three following alternatives are grammatically correct:

(1) ¿Habla usted inglés?

(2) ¿Habla inglés usted?

(3) ¿Usted habla inglés?

In turn, each may have one or two pragmatically different meanings, according to the intonation and rhythm. As for me, I would never ever say (1) ¿Habla usted inglés?, because that sounds very weird in my 'lect. I'd rather go for (2) or (3), with a slight preference for the latter. There probably is no way to phrase this in a manner that satisfies everybody... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Great. Let's go for sei falai inglês? instead. (and yes, I just made that language up... :-p) Tomer ^TALK 11:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

(1) sounds better to me, definitely. The other 2 seams to lack of a comma before/after Usted. -Mariano(t/c) 13:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Me being an Argentine and all, the word Usted sounds weird altogether. :) I'd tend to side with Mariano in this one, (1) looks good but (3) is acceptable. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a clue, though I would plump for 2. Out of curiosity does usted not get used at all in Argentina? If you don't know whether someone speaks English usted would be the only form to use here in Honduras, but this is the country where even lovers sometimes refer to each other as usted (though vos is more common), SqueakBox 16:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In reality, in Argentina Usted is used almost only when in formal situation (like the German "Sie"). I don't think I ever spoke to my parents/friends/lovers/etc like that. Actually, when a kid refers to me using "Usted" I feel ancient!! :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say Disculpe, ¿habla inglés? ("Excuse me ...") without a pronoun. I also feel terrible when someone addresses me as usted; it's almost as bad as señor. (3) would be better written and acceptable as Usted, ¿habla inglés?. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that for English speakers one of the first things you learn is that Spanish doesn't need pronouns in the way English does, how about just "habla ingles?". It kinfd of typifies the language more, SqueakBox 02:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was reading over the article on Japanese and in it they covered borrowings from English and other European languages. Then they continued on to borrowings from Japanese due to it's international status. Couldn't this article benefit from a Spanish loanwords section? I know that not all Spanish vocabulary comes from Latin!

IMO it is very POV against the nations not put in the opening box to just have Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Columbia in the opening, SqueakBox 05:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In the face of constant reverts froma single editor I have changed the names of the countries in the now small box. Don't revert, bring your issues here, but I woulsd advise you not to claim that big countries like Spain are more important than small countries like Honduras, as it is POV, SqueakBox 15:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever said a country was more important than the other. The argument for which some countries (mainly Spain) should be in the abreviate list of states instead of others (at least the one I have) are the philological and cultural impacts the country has on the rest of the Spanish speaking countries and the world, through the Spanish language. Therefore, I would first select countries such as Colombia (literature, music, television) before some other that has not such an influece on the hole world. If the English language article found its balance, so can this. Mariano(t/c) 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Squeak, changed first and read later. I would either leave them ALL in or say something like:

"Most of Latin America, Most of Central America, Mexico, Spain and several other countries as a second or third language"

What do you think?

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What I think is we should keep it as it was before Al-Andalion changed it, but I agree a compromise mentioning just the regions or even something as vague as Spain and 2/3rds of Latin America would be an alternative I would go for. Selecting a few countries is bound to create ongoing problems which is why I brought the whole list to the box in the first place, SqueakBox 19:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, all the countries should be there or none... otherwise problems will arise. Would you like to copy them back/rephrase it or do I do it? --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a Spoken with section if it is followed by a Region one, which is clear enough. Perhaps in Spoken with we should keep just See geographic distribution below. Ejrrjs | What? 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I like Ejrrjs's suggestion, doesn't make much sense. But I like the changes... I love the changes, unfortuntately the infobox doesn't allow us to eliminate the line altogether.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that will settle the issue. Ejrrjs | What? 00:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading which includes excerpts of old documents about the time of the Conquest of Mexico and I'm seeing both systemtic and random differences to modern Spanish orthography. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia about anything but the current orthography. I would like to know if there were previous reforms, what those changed, or if Spanish orthography was unruly until recently. Any details greatly appreciated!

Examples of systematic differences:

• á for modern a
• muger for modern mujer
• coraçon for modern corazón
• dixo for modern dijo
• ansí for modern así
• mas for modern más

Examples of non-systematic differences:

• é or i for modern y
• io for modern yo
• Letter v in many places taken by modern b
• Letters u and v are interchangeable
• Many missing modern acute accents

I'm cross-posting this question from Talk:Writing system of Spanish since this page seems to receive little traffic. — Hippietrail 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know too much about this, but... The g~j change is maybe to be expected since the original sound was li (mulier); then I think it turned into a palatal fricative, and then into a velar fricative. With all this changes going, the orthography must have varied a lot. In fact the word sounds exactly the same with a g in this case... Mas and más are different things; mas is the same as pero ("but"), while más (from Latin magis) means "plus" or "more". The accent is there just to distinguish the two. As for i instead of y, I seem to recall the latter was fixed in orthography quite late; Catalan uses i. The letters v and b are used conventionally, since they sound exactly the same in Spanish, in all cases (no matter what any prescriptivist teacher says); in days prior to language academies and printed dictionaries, it's no wonder that people employed one or other indistinctly. The u and v thing goes back to Latin, which had only V for both the vowel /u/ and the semivowel /w/ (as well as I for both /i/ and /j/, and C for both /k/ and /g/). The x and j confusion is due to the fact that they used to represent two different sounds which later merged. For a while, people remembered where each one was supposed to be, but then their use became more arbitrary, and finally x was abolished (for that sound) except in a few names (like México and Oaxaca). Oaxaca should be written Huajaca, BTW (and México should be Méjico, which some people do write). I hope someone else sees this message and corrects the (very likely) mistakes of the previous explanation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The phonology of Spanish has changed across centuries. The orthography has followed some of the changes. Besides the standard orthography has not taken root until the foundation of the RAE in the 18th century. Even later the RAE itself has made changes.

v=u. If you read the letter articles, the distinction is quite new as is distiguishing i and j.

á I have seen quite recently (19th or even 20th century).

ansí is an archaic form.

é is also archaic. It is still the standard before i- as in padre e hijo.

History of the Spanish language should cover this.

Read also seseo and ceceo for the changes in sibilants: s, ss, ç, z, x.

--Error 00:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ansí is still in use in rural areas of Argentina, and in folklore lyrics. Ejrrjs | What? 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of the mentioned phonology still exists in the Ladino dialect of Spanish. A Ladino speaker would be able to read Old Spanish texts with much more precision than a normal speaker of Spanish because they retain the phonology used unitl 1492. Words like ansí, fijo, favlar, vafo, afogar, fumo, foja, formiga, fiel (hiel), filo (hilo), forca, muncho, ferir, feder, fazer, dezir, dixo, lexos, dexar, quexarse and páxaro among many others, are still used in Ladino today which is essentially still archaic Spanish. Error | ?? 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your responses so far. I have posted a followup version of my question with ammendments on Talk:History of the Spanish language where I hope to receive more helpful answers. — Hippietrail 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although "Spanish" is the word used to describe the allies of Mexico who helped to repulse invaders from the north colonizing Texas, the appropriate word should be "Hispanic" which indicates tribal culture of the Caribbean Sea region.

The constant mis-use of the term "Spanish" is irritating and self-defeating, as is the political use of the academic language discipline applied to Texas (U. S. A.) history and politics. It is more irritating than the constant defamation of the French after their landings on the Mexican coast, thousands of miles from home port in Europe. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

talking how you feel about the issue does not make the issue clearer. What's the issue ? SpiceMan (??) 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentences about ch and ll to reflect the quote from the RAE in the Feb 2005 discussion in the archives. I'm new at this Wikipedia thing, and I'm still not fully satisfied with my edit, but I think it's clearer now. I'm still concerned about a couple of things. For example, the paragraph implies that vowels with accents are special letters that Spanish uses, but surely we think of those as accent marks used over the same Latin vowels, rather than as five additional vowels? I'd like to see this addressed. Maybe I'll do it myself when I get the courage.... BLT 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the text in this article says that it was 1990 that the RAE said to alphabetize ch and ll as separate, letters, but the main article on the writing system says it was 1994. Which is correct? 69.153.91.40 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the use of that term throughout this article. The term is used often historically to discuss times when no language had yet been named spanish. And it is sometimes used to mean spanish, as opposed to other languages of the kingdom of spain in present day. But it is never used, except on wikipedia, to mean spanish from spain. I am changing it to something universally understood.

I agree. It isn't ever used here in Central American either, SqueakBox 15:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is Castilian language as the expression "Spanish language" is completely wrong. Spain has FOUR Spanish languages being Castilian the most spoken one. It´s the same question as I speak "english" but I do not speak "british". Spanish language is not only a bad definition, it´s offenssive and it´s also an ilegal expresion in Spain as it is written on the Constitution of Spain. I would like Wikipedia to correct this unfortunate and discriminatory expresion to define Castillian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.34.170 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 January 2006

In English, castellano is called Spanish. The term is politically problematic given the history of regional nationalism in Spain, but sources in English always say "Spanish" except, as stated above, when talking about Castilian in a historical setting. There's already an explanation in the article regarding the alternative names. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Since studying Spanish years ago, this has been something that I've been curious about. To what degree are there Arabic influences/words in Castillian? And what about Africanisms or First World words in Spanish spoken in the Americas? I recall years ago asking my honors Spanish instructor about the origin of the extremely common expression "Ojalá." My teacher responded that it was simply an idiomatic expression with no particular meaning. It didn't take long for me to realize, after studying the 300(?)-year Moorish domination of Spain, that the phrase was simply "Oh, Allah!" with the gutteral stop metamorphosed to a "j" sound. (A no-brainer.) Presumably, there are other examples. I know English is rife with foreign-language importations. To what extent are these phenomena present in Castillian and other variations of Spanish? deeceevoice 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ojalá" is not from a particular dialect but proper Spanish. There are a lot of words with Arabic origin (Ojalá, Almohada, etc), many of them even passed to French and English (Alcohol, Algorithm, etc) See Influences on the Spanish language for more info. Mariano(t/c) 16:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reread my comments. I didn't say "ojalá" was a dialect. Clearly, it appears in Castillian, as well as in the Spanish spoken in the Americas. Thanks for the link, though. I skimmed the article and missed the in-line reference to it. (I looked instead for a similar link in the "see also" section.) deeceevoice 16:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Joan Corominas accepts that ojalá comes from wa ša llâh, "and may God want!".

There are other etymologies like inshallah and ya sa llah

--Error 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Deecevee I would say Anglicanisms are as common in Spanish as French words are in English. Here in Honduras okay is very popular but it also has a quality of a greeting, especially at the end of a conversation. Cheque (Che-ke) is another popular word taken from the English which means yes we agree, say when a shopping transaction is completed. Chance, pronounced in Spanish, is another very popular Central American import. There may be a lot more of this in CA and Mexico than in South or Caribbean America because the US influence is stronger here, but I saw it indifferent forms in Spain as well, SqueakBox 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

According to DRAE,chance was borrowed from French (as the English term was, a little bit earlier) User:Ejrrjs says What? 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many Native American words in everyday Spanish dialects all over Latin America, but they vary wide not only from Country to Country, but even between regions. For instance Pop-corn (which Indians already prepared before the arrival of the Europeans) is in Standard Spanish Palomitas de maiz, whereas in Buenos Aires (and the southern half of Argentina) we use the (I think Mapuche) word Pochoclo; 300 kilometres away, in Rosario, Santa Fe Province, the Guaraní word Pororó is used. I'm not sure what are you exactly searching for, but if you dig into dialects (such as Lunfardo), you will find a ton of borrowed idiomatic expresions. Mariano(t/c) 09:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)