Talk:Language secessionism

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Galician-Portuguese

In the Galician-Portuguese text I changed some things. It's because the text was too biased. The text just represented the ideas of a very minority movement , seriously insulting. I've just changed the text to expound the ideas of most Galicians, without deleting reintegrationist opinions and ideological bases: Most Galicians consider Galician as a different language. Most Galicians think that Portuguese, Spanish, and Galician are independent languages. Otherwise, Galician people consider that Portuguese and Galician are brother languages.

Reintegrationism is just a little part of the nationalist movement (nationalists represent less than 20 % of Galicians). (added 28th december 2007)

Thank you for your contribution and happy holidays. However, you claim about the number of supporters that reintegrationism has should be sourced. FilipeS (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese and Galician for many are the same language or varieties of the old Galaico-Galician or Galaicoportuguese. But a question? Since oficial criation from former "vulgar" Language to a new oficial language in Portugal in Administration and prestige in the life of the Nation, by King Dinis(King Denis) in XIII century was already officialy called Portuguese Language in King Dinis act! (altought XV Century marks the separation between the to variants, Portuguese and Galicin, maybe they will join again) I think it was. Any way Lusophony-Portuguese is also Galician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.192.157 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan in Aragon

There is a mistake in the next assertion: "It is supported only by a fraction of the already minority pro-Aragonese movements, they overstate a so-called Aragonese ancestry in the Catalan spoken in Aragon." The point is that this secessionism movement is supported currently by the Goverment of Aragon (formed by Popular Party, PP,and Aragonese Party, PAR), but this is not the position of the majority of the Aragonese movement. In fact Aragonese Party tend to be asociated more with left-wing ideas (pro-spanish and anti-catalan, like PP) that with the defense of Aragonese language. A better sentence could be

"It is supported only by some sections of the two main left-wing parties in the goverment (Popular Party and Aragonese Party) that overstate a so-called Aragonese ancestry in the Catalan spoken in Aragon. However exists a strong rejection to this secessionist position by academic institutions like University of Zaragoza and left-wing parties in the goverment"'

References:

--Willtron (?) 08:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Language secessionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgish?

Is the breakoff of Luxembourgish from German a case of language secessionism (in this case, of defensible language secessionism)? Though it was more like "calling a dialect a language", when that dialect did exist in its own right, than "building a new language to separate from another".--2001:A61:260C:C01:9DC4:CBB8:322E:6592 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkien section

In the last rewrite, I used this blog post as a source: https://taiwangok.blogspot.com/2011/06/03-hololanguage.html. A blog is not an ideal source, and so it got removed. However, it does cite several reliable sources that could be incorporated. It also contains one reliable citation in support of the fringe theory that the author then attempts to argue against with other sources. Euniana/Talk 17:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin vs other Chinese dialects

The article claims that "However, the languages are reportedly significantly more mutually intelligible in written form as all varieties continue to use the same set of Hanzi (Chinese characters)."

This contradicts the articles on Written Cantonese and Written Hokkien, which claim that a substantial number of words are written with Hanzi that are not used in Mandarin (and in some cases not in Unicode or not standardize.) C.f. "The problem with using only Chinese characters to write Min Nan is that there are many morphemes (estimated to be around 15 percent of running text)[5] which are not definitively associated with a particular character." 71.191.38.183 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans / Dutch

Would Afrikaans / Dutch be considered Abstand or Ausbau? In either case I'm wondering if it doesn't deserve a place in this article? Erichv (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Tamazight/Amazigh/Tuareg/etc. etc.

Interesting topic of someone wants to take it up.

Morocco has created a Standard Moroccan Tamazight for writing based on it's dialects. Algeria has made one too based on Kabyle. There is a debate about the use of Tifinagh etc.

Lots to unpack there. Equwal (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]