Talk:Siculo-Arabic

Untitled

This page needs a first paragraph, with bolding, brief definition, and overview. AnonMoos 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison chart

Shouldn't the chart compare Siculo-Arabic or Sicilian words to the Arabic equivalents? Afterall the chart follows this sentence "Arabic influence is noticeable in hundreds of Sicilian words, most of which relate to agriculture and related activities, the practice of which survives today." That chart doesn't demonstrate that. BTW, I don't see the Arabic influence for half the words except for zebeeb (raisins) za'fran (saffron) tanura (oven) zahra (flower) jeb (cistern) and taboot (coffin). --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The term 'Siculo-Arabic' is problematic (see cited article by Agius and book by Metcalfe). It's not the most widely or accepted term either. 'Sicilian Arabic' is better and more widely used term of reference. The links between Sicilian Arabic and Maltese are highly tentative. Arguably, anything on Maltese should appear in their own separate sections. Suggest: rename the artice 'Sicilian Arabic' and drop the links and sections to Maltese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiphile 0211 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I undid the move from "Siculo-Arabic" to "Sicilian Arabic" (in November 2009). The above argument does not make sense to me since the term Siculo-Arabic – which Agius does use, after all – does not inherently imply a distinctive variety of Arabic, any more than Sicilian Arabic does, and significantly, "sicilian arabic" language yields fewer results than "siculo-arabic" language on Google Scholar, casting serious doubt on the assertation that the term "Siculo-Arabic" is less used or accepted in academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange Sentence

What is this sentence trying to say? "Although the Norman rulers employed Arabic and some were attested as Arabic speakers themselves, after only a century the dynasty died out and their successors expelled the remaining Muslims in the 13th century."

Is it saying that after only a century DID the dynasty die out? Is it speaking of the Muslim dynasty dying out after after a century of Norman rule? It doesn't make sense.

Per article title

As described in my edit summaries, I have twice modified the section title to "Muslim conquest of Sicily" to comport with the article of the same name. There is no explanation or rationale for why it should be named "Arab conquest of Sicily" though I have been reverted twice. Per the principles of WP:BRD it was the responsibility of TaivoLinguist to open a discussion before entering an edit-war, but I have taken that step now so I would appreciate hearing the rationale for the change which should by now be quite adequately explained and supported by facts. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand WP:BRD. You were the one reverted after your edit so it is you who must leave the status quo alone and gain consensus for your edit. You are the one who is edit warring with your failure to adhere to the guidance of WP:BRD and not getting consensus for your reverted edit. --Taivo (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I misunderstood it. Please address the issue at hand. Why have you reverted my edit after I gave abundant rationale for it? What is your rationale? 72.201.104.140 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Per article title" is not "abundant rationale" in an edit summary. Also, while the invasion was at least partially religiously motivated, "Muslim" is too broad a category since it could include Berbers, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indonesians, etc. The invasion of Cyprus was Arab specifically and Muslim only generally. The specificity is more encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you object to the article title established at Muslim conquest of Sicily, for two years deemed a WP:GA, and the same wording approved for a WP:DYK four years ago; and would prefer to take up a WP:RM there then? 72.201.104.140 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Siculo Arabic transition to Maltese

Possible Substratum: Elymi, Phoenician, Punic & Hebrew, Substratum seems to be coincidentally shared by both Palermo & Malta. Although the Siculo Arabic origin is obvious, but the substratum might have helped. (Substratum can be alternatively categorized by the minimal Greek element, compared to the rest of Magna Grecia)

Aghlabid Dynasty (9th century)

• First Language of the ruling Arab minority & Zanj slaves
• Minor language Berber, Saqaliba Slavic soldiers (initially Greek speakers) & Siculo natives (still largely Greek)

Kalbid dynasty (10th & 11th century)

• First Language of the ruling Arab minority, Zanj slaves & Saqaliba Slavic soldiers (by now having Arabic names)
• First language of the Siculo Muslims in Palermo, Agrigento, Butera, Enna & Noto
• Minor language in Messina, Taormina, Cefalù, Catania & Syracuse (still largely Greek)

Norman Sicily (1091-1194)

• First language of a small Siculo Muslim population
• First language of a converted Arabic speaking population (including members of the Kalbid Arab dynasty)
• Minor language of a small Arabized Christian population

Hohenstaufen reign (1194-1266)

• First language of the Norman era governing class (mostly Christian & some Muslims)
• Minor language in Palermo & Noto

Latin Era (14th century)

• Muslim minority expelled out of Sicily.
• Latinistation of the Arabic & Greek Sicilians.
• Remnants of the Disenfranchised (Norman era governing class) appear in Malta.

This is the closest we can get on drawing the transition of Siculo Arabic as the language of Muslim Aghlabids into the Siculo Arabic of the Christian Maltese. Droveaxle (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Forgetting Greek?

Latin Sicilian thrived in the Norman era, there was an earlier African latin substratum, but the Latin brought by the Normans was from Latin speaking immigrants from Lombardi regions & Campania. Both Arabic & Greek died out in Sicily as an official language around the same time. Slow decline under Normans & complete omission by the time of the Aragonese who completely Latinized Sicily.

″ Naturally, Arabic was widely spoken and it was a major influence on Sicilian, which emerged as a Romance (Latin) language during the subsequent (Norman) era. The Sicilian vernacular was in constant evolution, but until the arrival of the Arabs the most popular language in Sicily was a dialect of Greek. ″ Best of Sicily Droveaxle (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Extinction claim is incoherent as it stands

Siculo-Arabic is extinct is contradicted by present day Maltese most likely evolved from Siculo-Arabic (and similar statements in the article on Maltese language). I massaged the text a tiny bit to remove the contradiction, but someone reverted the change (absolutely without explanation of why), so now it's back to two claims that cannot coexist, i.e. one is false. As the text stands, it's akin to declaring that Latin is extinct, and then noting that the modern Romance languages are continuations of Latin. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a hasty revert. You are right. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for setting it right. As so often is the case, haste makes waste (at least of time). Also, courtesy occasions explanation for reversions. Peace. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TabulaRogeriana upside-down.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)