Talk:Caipiras

Wrong information

Yes, there is wrong information. Who reads this article, reads like it is a language. It is nonsence. The differences in pronunciation should be given in IPA, no creating a pseudo-writing system for the dialect based on pronunciation. And the references to Portuguese should be "Standard Portuguese", not just "Portuguese". It is clearly a pseudolinguistic article, I'm sorry. Some days ago, it even had an imaginary language family! Because it is a so particular dialect, there's maybe some information about it, you just need to look for it. No offense but it should be cleaned. -Pedro 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's just non-sense. I'm from the interior of São Paulo and we don't talk just like that. The text which the article was taken from was written almost a hundred years ago. It showed how illiterated people talk not only in São Paulo but in many parts of the country. As a graduated in Portuguese and English languages my opinion is that the text should be cleaned. It gives researchers a bad and wrong idea of a dialect that doesn't exist at all. GODOY 2006/03/01

I can tell you that I am currently living in the São Paulo countryside and that is EXACTLY how the majority of the low-income population speaks here, i e., "Nóis é pobre, mais não é orgulhoso", "Ele pegô eu no sítio prá nóis ir no baile", "Os home fica nos carro esperando as mulhê sair", etc... Even educated middle-class speakers use caipira-like nominal agreement (like "os carro" above) and EVERYBODY, from all social classes, uses the retroflexive "r" (even our finance minister from Ribeirão Preto and the disgraced former chief of staff of our illiterate president!). The only thing I would object to in the original article is the statement that says the dialect of the city of São Paulo ("paulistano") resembles "caipira", which is clearly not true (the retroflexive "r" never occurs for example in standard "paulistano"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.177.42.22 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 January 2006

- PS: The "caipira" examples above are actual sentences I heard from cab drivers in the city of São José dos Campos (a highly industrialized and urbanized middle-sized town where Embraer is based). That shows how widespread "caipira" is, even in wealthy areas where access to public education is readily available. Just for the sake of non-Lusophone speakers, in order to appreciate the differences between "caipira" grammar and standard Brazilian Portuguese, the standard sentences corresponding to the examples above would be: "(Nós) Somos pobres, mas não somos orgulhosos", "Ele me pegou/pegou-me no sítio para (nós) irmos ao baile", and "Os homens ficam nos carros esperando as mulheres saírem". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.177.42.22 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2006

The same as mineiro?

My understanding is that the Caipira dialect/accent can also be found in (wide?) areas of Minas Gerais, yet there's no mention of Minas in the article.

Relevant

Also, I agree that the article is sub-standard as it stands right now, but it is an important article with some relevant information; it should be improved. Especially interesting is the information about the retroflexive "r", as that seems to be a rather rare sound in languages around the world, and even more in Portuguese (probably unique to Caipira).--Cotoco 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

I removed some examples which are completely nonsense, e.g. "musga" and "Ingalaterra". I've lived all my life in the "countryside" of São Paulo and never heard such things. Lenineleal 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On noun-adjective concordance: it's highly unnatural even for caipira for noun and adjective not to agree in gender. The example "essas coisarada bunito" thus seems exagerated for me. Someone should also note the differences between countryside São Paulo and Minas Gerais pronounce and inflection. --200.198.16.222 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For deletion

Gosh, since when bad spoken portuguese is a dialect? This article needs to be deleted...

Linguistics does not make value judgements about manners of speaking. It studies how people actually speak, not only what some people (or even most people) think it's "bad" or "good". "Dialect" is just a term (not quite well-defined) meaning a "variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area". - tatapyranga

Disambig needed?

"Caipira" is also used to designate a genre of rural Brazilian music, I believe... Chubbles (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Caipira is an adjective which encompasses regional features and folk culture originated from a historical and ethnical combination of Portuguese, Amerindian, Afro-Brazilian and Italian features. This is rare but, in this case, the Portuguese article on the subject is far better than the English one. So I think it would be a good idea to translate some text. I'm probably going to do it myself in the near future. (I'm myself an "Italo-caipira", by the way...) Eumedemito (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portuguese article is EXCLUSIVELY about the dialect, and thus, if one is to translate that, it should translate it into a CAIPIRA DIALECT article, and not in this one. This article, I suggest, should be here to point to the articles about the music style, the dialect and the people.

R-dropping

It would be nice to know whether the "r"s that are dropped at the end of syllables lengthen the preceding vowel. For instance, is melhor pronounced [miˈjɔ], or [miˈjɔː]? FilipeS (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. No lengthening. Many unstressed (and especially ending) phonemes simply disappear, just like the ending r of the infinitive (which, except in formal contexts, is hardly ever heard in Brazil). Eumedemito (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some lengthening but we need more research resources for that to be included in the article. The infinitive "R" may be hardly heard on general but common words like "comer" are more generally pronounced [kome:] or [komeh] or even [komex] depending on the regional "R" distribution/quality with "komeh" prominent everywhere, especially Rio, but less popular than "normal" lengthening found in "kome:" and other "R" dropping words and it's not just "R" as there is a compensatory lengthening for elision in words like "mesmo" generally becoming [me:'mu] or [meh'mu] punctuation showing the gap as in "dotô" [do'to:] for "dotor (from Latin "doctor") and punctuation does make a case fore lengthening on "frô" [fɾo:] instead of expected *{fɹo:], mió [miˈjɔ] with "ó" marking not just stressed vowels but likely lengthening found also in "ocê" [oˈse:] or [u'se:] otherwise it would be [oˈsɪ:] or [u'si:] cf doce ... with all these varieties of dialects, as linguistics makes no judgment to regionalism, now I'm curious to see what percentage speaks "Standard Portuguese" and how pervasive other "dialecticisms" shape the linguistic culture of the country highlighting how the "Rio-Sampa" axle bowdlerizes other regional historical places like the former "Guarani" state of Parana where I'm from. ~kp

IPA

I'd like to know where the IPA references are coming from as i see no references available, especially since I'm seeing some vowels (like ʊ, ɜ̃) not found on this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_phonology ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it

This article should be deleted; it has nothing to do with reality. Ninguém (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sweeping comment; it would be more helpful if you could point out what's wrong. But it does appear that the article lacks references; currently it has none, and only two external links which may or may not back up the text. — Sebastian 18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

After 4 1/2 years, this article is still at stub level. It may make sense to merge this article into a larger one - see discussion at Talk:Brazilian Portuguese#Regional accents. — Sebastian 18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group

Caipira is not an ethnicity. Caipira is just the inhabitant of the rural areas of the central and southern regions of Brazil. A group of people with characteristics in common is not necessarily an ethnic group.

The Paulistânia region does not exist. Scheridon (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:Kasufcgslfguhvsne/editing/caipira (which seems to have been translated from Portuguese Wikipedia), incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]