Jump to content

Talk:Reintegrationism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion

[edit]

The problem in my opinion is as simple as this: moder orthography of Galician has taken us away of our past. Yo can go walking by Pontevedra or Santiago and read 6 hundred or 7 hundred years old "reintegrationist" phrases like "Estevan Martis regedor mandou fazer esta obra era MCCC" ("Stephan Martin, mayor, ordered this building aera 1400"), that look and feel like portuguese to most modern galicians, but that are pure and simple Galician in its old tradition and ortography.

-Cadroyolo-

Your wrong simplification of reintegrationismo only to orthography leads me to enlarge the article. Thanx Sobreira 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reintegracionism verses mainly about orthography. AGAL allows "freedom" in spoken Galician, with the usual caution not to include force Spanish loans, etc (isolacionists recommend the same as a matter of fact: try to avoid unnecessary loans from Spanish) (XP 06/Sept/08)

Give a Clear View

[edit]

I think this article omits a fulcral point: that of the "isolationist" point of view in fact is "spanish" point of view. Current ortography ("official") of Galician is, purely, the Spanish one almost exactly. An authentic "isolationist" philosophy in fact would develop a different and by its own ortography, and not to convert Galician in a subsidiary language (or dialect) of Spanish. This is the fulcral point about "isolationism", and not the nearer or the farther from Portuguese may be these ones or those others. "Isolationist" would be more consistent if Galician ortography would be as different from Portuguese than from Spanish, so, really, the "isolationist" position is in fact a "pro-Spanish" position about the "natural place" of Galician. Of course, it is not new at all, with many examples in Europe itself (Moldavian vs. Romanian, Catalan vs. Valencian, Flemish vs.Dutch and so on).212.51.52.4 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. "Isolationism" can be ultimately traced to the work of Rexurdimento and later writers who adapted Spanish ortography to write in the Galician language, some decades before the medieval writings were discovered. With the possible exception of Carvalho Calero no significant modern Galician writer has ever used any kind of reintegrationist ortography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CadavoBis (talk • contribs)

The fact that Galician and Spanish have a very similar grammar and spelling doesn't make Galician a dialect. It's the result of a natural evolution of the language (which wasn't too different to start with since they are both ibero-romance languages) caused by several periods of linguistic (and socio-political) oppression from the Spanish government (Namely, the dark centuries and Franco's dictatorship). Reintegrationism pretends to return to the old grammar and spelling, forcing the evolution of the language. I don't think that transforming the language into something that only some nationalist speak, and when talking in public, is a good way to recover a language. --83.43.149.218 (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thing is that Galician hasn't had a "natural" evolution, definitely not in the last 100 years. Hence the controversies and debates. This article should elucidate that issue: that there IS a debate, and that it's not going away no matter how many "official" norms are passed and approved. Maybe it should be interesting to mention the Norwegian case, where there are two official spelling systems, two different official norms for the same language, and everybody's cool about it. Could this be a possibility for written Galician? In any case, this is NOT the place to discuss whether reintegracionism is "right" or "wrong". This article is to explain what reintegracionism stands for, only. Debate belongs somewhere else Maybe someone should start an article about isolacionism, to clarify the points from the other perspective (me says) (XP 06/Sept/08)

Name of article - Galician versus other possible examples

[edit]

Hello - this article is called simply Reintegrationism. I came here from a link in the Galician language. I find this title odd, simply because I've never heard of it before, and yet it has a very broad title, Reintegrationism, rather than for example Galician Reintegrationism. Alternatively, are they other examples of reintegrationism in other parts of the world that should be added to the article? It would be odd for an English language term to refer specifically to Galicia. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... I can't think of similar examples right now... Maybe Moldovan/Romanian? (XP 06/Sept/08)

I can't think of any concrete examples that use reintegrationism as a term, but the tendency could be found in any similar languages separated by a border: Scots and Irish Gaelic, Cornish and Breton, Dutch and Flemish dialects... Still find this one odd. It might well have common currency in Spanish, but not in English. All google hits are for definitions of what it is, rather than general discussions where the term is understood. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As far as I know the term was coined in Galicia and used only there (afterwards "exported" to the rest of Portuguese-speaking countries, of course). Thus, no problem in using it in English as a neologism, IMO. Maybe we could be more specific and refer to "linguistic reintegration", or "Galician linguistic reintegration", but then we would be creating a new term, again. Swamp Greetings (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sections and added info

[edit]

Hiya. Over the last couple of days I took the liberty of re-arranging the sections in the article and creating new ones for better clarity (I hope!). I've also added more general info, references, links and examples. I also edited some of the English (although I'm not a native speaker).

I tried to explain what reintegracionism "is", as such, without falling into the sterile debate of "reintegracionism vs isolacionism". Obviously, brief references to "isolacionism" are given to let the reader know what's going on ;)

If anyone wants to start an article on "isolacionism (Galicia)" feel free; as a matter of fact there should be one. But I won't do it myself.1 --Swamp Greetings (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some examples for the differences between NOMIGa and AGAL. Just one of two for each case, since data overload spoils clarity. Swamp Greetings (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARegarding starting a new article called "Isolationism (Galicia)", it would probably be better to rename this article something like Galician language debate or Galician linguistic debate, as this is what the article is actually about anyway, since it covers both views here. The current article is not long enough to justify covering both views separately, especially when much of the material would overlap.
Also, please remember that this is an English language article. I've noticed "isolacionism" and "reintegracionism" used in several places in the article. These terms should be spelled "isolationism" and "reintegrationism", unless they are used in non-English phrases/quotes. I'll try to correct what I can, but if people are going to write in an English language article, they should be capable of copy editing themselves in most situations, aside from normal typo errors. - BilCat (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An external link to a political party ("NOS-Unidade Popular") has been added. I think we should stick to linguistic resources/references ONLY. If we start adding links to political parties or organizations using this or that norm we won't be done in 10 years... Reintegracionism may be linked to politics (as with everything in Galicia really), but it is not about politics. I think it's important to make that distinction!

Remove it?

Swamp Greetings (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Certainly not allowed to be used officially”

[edit]

I’d like some evidence for this before including it. Was it specifically disallowed at any point by any particular authority? Or, being seen as merely a peasant jargon, did it simply never occur to anyone to give it official treatment, the same way very, very few would ever think of drafting a legal document in e.g. Cockney or Black English? —Wiki Wikardo 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Reintegrationism. 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) 09:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reintegrationism&oldid=1208390311"