Talk:Ladin language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Other changes

From the south the Italian language started pushing in: to the south there are Venetian and Lombard (especially in the middle ages), this section needs to be clarified. --- Regarded Ladin as an "Italian dialect": not even a link to explain it? --- A notion repeatedly rejected by the Ladins themselves: again, populations don't make statements, populations don't speak like a choir. A source which states "We are ..." (with an unknown us!) is beyond ridiculous. The claim should be A notion rejected by various ladin exponents or associations(sources). --- in 1972 started recognising the rights for these communities: so, before 1972, they had no rights?! For example, they couldn't vote? It's better to write more linguistic rights. --Felisopus (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Italian language in the 6th century... This is really superb! This nonsense must be removed.
• In fact the sentence "in 1972 started recognising the rights for these communities" is misleading. The Ladin school had been established already in 1948. In 1972 Ladin was recognized as a partially official language.
• Moreover, it should be mentionend that the South Tyrol Option Agreement was extended to the Ladin population.
• populations don't speak like a choir. Correct. And they have quite different views. As far as I know the overwhelming majority of Ladins in the district of Ampezzo opted against Nazi Germany, while Ladins in South Tyrol opted for it.--Patavium (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's correct.
• Correct, that should be clarified in the article.
• I'm undecided, topic of this section is the history of the Ladin language, not the history of people who speak and spoke the Ladin language. It should focus to directly language-related topics.
• A notion rejected by various Ladin exponents or associations That sounds reasonable. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, by saying That's correct I referred to Patavium's This nonsense must be removed, both of us talking about the alleged existance of an Italian language in the 6th century. Unfortunately, Venetian and Lombard languages didn't exist in the 6th century either... The whole second part of that sentence should be removed, the important fact is that the Romance language area shrank through the migration of the Bavarii. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The expression Gallo-Italic languages is generic enough? Anyway, the removal do equally well. --Felisopus (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong quotes

Sajoch, I reverted your edit:

• please check the numbers;
• please make correct quotes;
• please read carefully the note by the ministry: Non è questa la sede per discutere se le varietà romanze del bellunese siano dialetti del ladino o dell’italiano This is not where to discuss if romance varieties of Bellunese are dialect of Ladin or Italian = See Questione ladina.
• please read carefully Toso: he criticizes Ladin in Belluno, but he says that the number of Ladins in Belluno is larger those in the historical (former Tyrolean) territories.--Patavium (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• If a single number is wrong, you should correct that single number instead of cancelling the whole paragraph
• There's nothing wrong with the quotes
• The author didn't want to discuss the fact further, but nevertheless he deemed it such an important finding as to mention it. And there's no reason we should ignore the statement of an expert.
• You misinterpret Toso: he clearly says, that the Bellunese dialects are not Ladin, and that those "false" ladins outnumber the historical ladins.--Sajoch (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not cancel the paragraph. I moved it to status and eliminated your POV.--Patavium (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You removed a source and inserted the paragraph in a position further down and out of context, so it totally looses its assertion. The sources both refer explicitly to the ladinity of the dialects in the Belluno province.--Sajoch (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Toso criticizes minority legislation in general. He takes Ladin and Occitan as examples among others.

I added a source by a Ladin expert.--Patavium (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The source you added (Videsott) again tells us, that "Ladino Bellunese" is not "Dolomite Ladin", but a separate group of rhaeto-romance dialects. Thanks for the source.--Sajoch (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The next time you provide us with wrong translations you will be immediately reported to the admninistrators. Stop this game you have already tried on other Wikipedias.--Patavium (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You may blame me of laziness, if I didn't translate the whole sentence, but the text you inserted did not respect the meaning of the cited sentence. WP:STICKTOSOURCE--Sajoch (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Common Phrases

I think they should change the phrases used, it is not the desire to provide a diversity of dialects, sentences respond to different things, although related, they are still different. I hope it is due to the difficulty of the English to establish the incredible difference between the verb "Ser" and the verb "Estar", which in English is, to be, losing all significance that this verb implies more considering its importance

In the traduction of the phrases in the different dialects, different phrases have been translated, for example:

Where do you live? & Where are you?

What's your name? & As is your name?

Maybe are similar, but not is the same phrase. Lost every significant.--190.178.247.187 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. We have to choose between translating single words - and then we have the problem that they may have multiple meanings (e.g.: lingua=language, lingua=tongue). Or translating the meaning of a whole sentence (and thus "where do you live?" gets translated to "Ula stessa?", while "Where are you?" corresponds to "Ula iessa?"). A one-to-one translation is seldom possible. I don't mind if we toss those examples alltogether. :-)--Sajoch (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should give more examples in order to give the reader an idea.--Patavium (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ever had a good old paper encyclopaedia in your hands? Are the articles filled with examples and tables? I think not. There's a lot more to tell about a language than filling rows and columns with examples.--Sajoch (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean if I ever had an encyclopaedia with over 4,100,000 articles in my hands? No, I did not, not even a volume.--Patavium (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can read. I wrote: "good old paper encyclopaedia". :-) But I'm not so sure you're willing to read. I mean: if the examples are problematic, we may do without them, as the're not essential for a good article.--Sajoch (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see your point unless your intention is to conceal that Ladin is not a Germanic language and/or that several varieties exist.--Patavium (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The above comment about "common phrases" was not mine, but by an anonymous, and I agree with him. Please stop assuming all your opponents have some malice intentions. As I wrote elsewhere: look in the mirror, and you're likely to find the real offender!--Sajoch (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I cannot see the point, unless it is usual total revert modus accompanied by very long and endless discussions, that is being sanctioned in your case.

As far as I understood, the anonymous prefers literal translations. Alie "Ke asto gnóm?" is not the literal translation of "What's your name?", which would be "What have you name?". But we all know that literal translations are not used. I mean "What's your name?" is not translated into Italian "Qual è il tuo nome" but "Come ti chiami", because the latter is the usual form.--Patavium (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, please restrain yourself from attacking other participants of this discussion, Sajoch's past is not the topic of this discussion here and (for what it's worth) neither is yours.

I wonder how you come to the conclusion that we all know that literal translations are not used. In fact, in linguistics it's good practise to provide an interlinear glossed text. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not attacking anybody. I can only repeat what I wrote on the noticeboard "Unfortunately Sajoch and Mai-Sachme are specialists in making up extremely long discussions, hundreds of kb are not a rarity, with the sole aim of preventing edits they do not like".

I wonder that you pretend not to understand. Take the simple phrase "How are you". In Italian you translate "Come stai", not "Come sei", which has also a different meaning (how do you look like). And the literal translation of "come stai" would be "How do you stay" translation. Literal translations are usually an indicator of bad command of a language.

As you can see here, the interlinear gloss is a step towards the normal translation.--Patavium (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pataviumm, I know what interlinear glossed texts are used for, I don't need to read a Wikipedia article for that. Your statement "literal translations are not used" is obviously not correct, since interlinear glossed texts regularly use them and do so with good reasons. You didn't know that, but there's no problem, not to know something is not a shame... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you take sentences out of a context you manipulate it. Literal babel fish translations are not useful in an encyclopedic article, but they may be in other contexts. It's 120,000 bytes and increasing.--Patavium (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself from personal attacks ("you manipulate it"). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Extracting sentences from their contexts is a personal attack too. I invite you to restrain from this practice.--Patavium (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you get on the wrong track, you should probably read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm talking about matters of facts, you are talking about personal behavior that lack evidence, accusing me of "manipulation". Nevertheless, your accusation is wrong. There's nothing to deny about it. An IP suggested to use word by word translations, you claimed that literal translations are not used and I showed you that literal translations are largely used in linguistics. In fact, a interlinear glossed text would be a improvement of our article here. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Literal translations are not used on Wikipedia, even if sometimes users come along with babelfish. So again, please do not take sentences out of their context. This goes againts honest collaboration and is a personal attack.--Patavium (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, they are used in Wikipedia, as well. Nafaanra, Nahuatl... Please accept that your claim was inaccurate. Talking about "personal attacks", just because I noted that your claims were wrong, is a bit weird. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I quote my "wrong claim": As you can see here, the interlinear gloss is a step towards the normal translation--Patavium (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Thank you for adding two more examples. The final product is always a non-literal-translation.--Patavium (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I quote your wrong claim: But we all know that literal translations are not used. [...] --Patavium (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC) After reading this I pointed out that literal translations are indeed used: Your statement "literal translations are not used" is obviously not correct, since interlinear glossed texts regularly use them. The fact that literal translations almost never stand alone, doesn't make your statement correct. And by the way, nobody wrote that literal translations should replace the normal translations. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

140,054 bytes still increasing. Quod erat demonstrandum.--Patavium (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry: with over 100 edits on this discussion you've set the record by far, and it will be difficult to rival you. :-)--Sajoch (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely worried since you provided us with wrong translations. See below.--Patavium (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My translation was not "wrong" - I simply didn't translate everything - you were free to translate the rest - as you did. I am extremly worried, as you continue to put the Nones and Bellunese dialects on the same level as the the Dolomite Ladin, while this article should be about the Dolomite Ladin only. You give those dialects UNDUE weight! Moreover I have given several sources (and even all of the sources you provided confirm it) that those dialects should rather be considered trentinian an venetian dialects, than as part of the Ladin language group.--Sajoch (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I corrected your wrong translation. Now that your nonsense has been beeing corrected you are invited to correct the false maps by yourself. Can you manage that?--Patavium (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You were invited often enough to refrain from personal attacks. And no, I will not forge the maps as per your POV.--Sajoch (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the statistics.--Patavium (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You continue to ignore common knowledge, academic sources, scientific findings and (last but not least) previous discussions we had on this argument.--Sajoch (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You do, on it.wiki, on en.wiki and on commons.--Patavium (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

third opinion with regard to IT => EN translation

I asked for a third opinion with regard to this translation: [1].--Patavium (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to help out here by providing a third opinion. Could both editors please state here, very briefly, what they think the issues are? For example: "How should source ABC be translated into English?" or "Should source ABC be used?" If you could state the questions to start with, we can get going. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I see another user already translated a source here: User_talk:Sajoch#Translation_of_.22Lingue_di_minoranza_e_scuola.22. I think that translation is better than the one currently in the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it. Thanks to you and JeanM.--Sajoch (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Just for the records:

• Translation Patavium[2]: The Ladinity of Belluno is rather ethnic than linguistic, and the varieties spoken by Ladin municipalities are Venetian alpine dialects whose grammar does not differ from the municipalities that did not declare themselves as Ladin
• "Translation" Sajoch[3]: The inhabitants of those valley are considered rather ethnic Ladins than linguistic as the Ladin varieties (called Ladino Bellunese) spoken in those communes are alpine venetian dialects which have a grammar equal to other venetian municipalities
• Third opinion: Ladinity in the province of Belluno is more ethnic than linguistic. The varieties spoken by Ladin municipalities are Venetian alpine dialects, grammatically similar to those spoken in municipalities that did not declare themselves as Ladin

I think Sajoch's edit-war was really unnecessary.--Patavium (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no my dear! The truth is: you didn't even want that sentence there, as it illustrates the non-ladinity of the bellunese dialects (see here, where you deleted and repeatedly, moved down or tried to dilute the evidence given by the source). Only after several reverts you slowly approached your "translation" to what the source says. The last version of yours was still wrong: you tried to constrain the non-ladinity to the sole town of Belluno, while the author referred to all communes of the province of Belluno (outside the 3 tyrolean ones). So please stop telling fairy tales to discredit me.--Sajoch (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are discrediting yourself by yourself. In Italy it is normal to use the provincial capital for the whole of the province as synecdoche. As I said more than once: discussions become extremely long if explanation of plain vanilla basics is needed. But I am glad to see that the ultimate translation was very close to mine.--Patavium (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that user Jean's translation is pretty darn good (speaking as a native English speaker who can read Spanish :-). If there are any other issues that could use my input, please ask on my Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The backness of /a/

Hello. What is the actual backness of /a/? @IvanScrooge98: linked it to a front vowel [a], yet the placement in the table suggests that it is central [ä], or at least variable between front [a], central [ä] and back [ɑ]. So which one is it? Peter238 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)