Talk:Spanish language/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Commonality with Portuguese

"Spanish and Portuguese share similar grammars and a majority of vocabulary as well as a common history of Arabic influence while a great part of the peninsula was under Islamic rule (both languages expanded over Islamic territories)."

Grammar aside (possibly pleonastic use of "share"; "majority" used with an uncountable noun) is it really the case that the larger part of Spanish vocabulary is identical to Portuguese vocabulary? — Paul G (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are very close in their written form, although the pronunciation can be very different. Many Portuguese speakers can actually understand a lot of spoken Spanish. I used to think this was a myth until I tested a Brazilian friend of mine, and she understood almost everything I said in Spanish to her. According to Ethnologue, they are 89% lexically similar which is probably why the word "majority" was used. See article Differences between Spanish and Portuguese. Kman543210 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that (some) Brazilian's understand Spanish up to a certain level it doesn't work as good the other way around. That is my personal experience made (living) in Spain and Brazil. --Floridianed (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I should've included that disclaimer that Spanish speakers can not easily understand Portuguese like Portuguese speakers can understand Spanish. I'm not sure if it's true intelligibility based on similarity or because of exposure of Spanish to Portuguese speakers since Brazil and Portugal are right next to Spanish-speaking countries (probably both). As a Spanish speaker, I cannot fully understand Portuguese but can understand written Portuguese pretty well for someone who doesn't speak it. Kman543210 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the cause is that Portuguese (for Spaniards´ears) has a kind of blurry pronunciation, while Spanish tends to have more definite sounds. Taking the word Portugal as an example, we Spaniards pronounce it as it´s written whereas when pronounced by some Portuguese people it sounds like Purchugl (with a kind of schwa between the g and the l). Phonetically, Spanish is rather poorer than Portuguese is.--Xareu bs (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It’s not that Portuguese has better phonetic should, it’s just different; after all they are two different languages. I really find it silly that people are always comparing these two languages as if there were dialects of each other, they are both great languages and there is no need to compare one to the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cooficiality in Spain

This wikipedia image on this article must be modifyed in order of correction. In Spain, spanish is the oficial language and is cooficial in some regions (such Galicia, Basque Country and Catalonia). You can verify it from the spanish constitution of 1978 (art. 3.1 and 3.2). You can discuss it on ca:Usuari:Bestiasonica (in english (medium/poor) and catalan). Thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.185.65 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish Language on CNN

The Spanish Language on CNN By Chris Crommet, Vice-President of CNN en Español. Atlanta The cyber community on Wikipedia tells us that in the case of "neutral Spanish," the linguistic forms employed generally coincide with academic rules regarding the language and with the forms used in the Spanish language literary tradition.

With all due respect to our academic colleagues, the traditional academic rules on language rarely apply to TV reports. They are not clear or concise enough. And they aren’t encompassing enough, given that TV reports are to be heard, not to be read. Our reports are written to be read out loud and to be understood by viewers as they hear them. In a journalistic context, it would also be problematic to employ the forms used in the Spanish literary tradition, as stipulated by the Wikipedia definition.

The fundamental issue is that we are after a simple and expressive Spanish, one that projects our idea as precisely as possible. At the same time, we would like it to be understood by our public across the world, at all the latitudes we reach. But we are not after flat accents or washed-out words, nor do we want grammatical constructions that are not agreeable to the ear, even if they are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.213 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is so one sided it makes the leaning tower of Pisa look upright

Spanish is so important, so widely spoken, so influential, so great, by the way did you know that Portuguese and Spanish are the same language?... Please, please, please!!!!!!!!! The rest of the world is not the United States. The United States might be experiencing mass immigration from Latin America and becoming more Spanish speaking but the rest of the world isn't. You don't even have to look very far to see that the rest of the world is not in the same position as the US. Just look a little north. How important is Spanish in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you are an American living in Latin America. Yes, Spanish is important in the countries where it is an official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article, or is this just a soapbox rant that should be deleted? Where did you get the idea that Spanish and Portuguese are the same language? They just happened to develop in the Iberian peninsula simultaneously. Kman543210 (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kman here. Please don't use talk pages as a soapbox if you have anything to say about improving the article just say it. Also Portuguese and Spanish are by no means "the same language".--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K. for example, Spanish and Italian do not differ very much in grammar. Excuse me? Spanish and Italian do in fact differ significantly. Let's take a simple sentence: Sono arrivata solo ieri (I only arrived yesterday as stated by a female) Sounds like saying they don't differ very much is a bit POV.

Another example, Spanish is the most popular studied foreign language in U.S. schools and universities. What about other countries? For example, how many people study Spanish in Hungary, Mongolia, the rest of the world?

Lastly, my all time favorite, Spanish has been described as the third most influential language in the world (after English and French). By whom? Where? Is Spanish the third most influential language in Central Europe? I don't think so. German, French and English occupy the three top positions in that region. Is it the third most influential language in Vietnam? Once again no. I think that English, French and Chinese would occupy the top three positions there.

I guess that Spanish is considered the third most influential language not because of it being learned in some other countries as a second language but because of it being spoken in the majority of America (continent), Spanish was not the native language in any country of America before the colonization by the Spaniards, so in my personal opinion it has been very influential as most of the countries in the continent have Spanish as their official language. Other cultures may have been more influential in other aspects (e.g. Chinese) but language wise i think it's accurate to say that Spanish is the 3rd most influential language. — Jahir (Panama) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.6.60 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish is one of the official languages of the U.N. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's just one little word you forgot. Spanish is one of the SIX official languages of the U.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, out of thousands of languages in the world. I think it's more POV to remove mention of Spanish's influence in the US. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that we should remove mention of Spanish's influence in the US. I said that we should include other countries as well to make it less US centric!

Thank you for expanding on your concerns about the article. I'll give my thoughts on each one of your points:

• Comparison to Italian: I think it's fair to compare Spanish to other Romance languages such as Italian and Portuguese. It's also true that the vowel sounds are more similar to Italian than to any other major Romance language, hence the statement of them sharing similar phonological systems. As far as grammar, there are many different aspects to grammar, but there is a source provided that they have a lexical similarity of 82%. The source provided states an 85% lexical similarity with Catalan, so this could also be mentioned.
• Most popular studied foreign language in the U.S.: I thinking finding statistics for every country might be difficult, but the U.S. has around the 3rd largest population in the world, so I think it's worth mentioning. Is this U.S.-centric? Maybe, but I think it's still notable.
• Third most influential language: Is this subjective? Yes, but it is sourced. I'll leave it up to other editors whether it should remain, as I don't have a strong feeling on it. It does state "has been described" instead of "it is." It does state "behind English and French," but as for Mandarin, that's debatable. Mandarin has the most speakers of any other language, but has it been influential around the world? Did China colonize all the continents and spread their language that way?

Kman543210 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not mention that Spanish should not be compared to other Romance languages nor did I talk about the phonological systems of the two languages. Please read my comment again and then comment on whether saying that the two languages do not differ very much in their grammars is POV or not. The US may have the world's third largest population but 300 million is not very significant when you compare it with China ( 1.3 billion) and India ( over 1 billion ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well if Spanish is popular in India and China we should mention that too. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have articles that support that yeah sure.

I give up. If people prefer this article be written as though it's for a magazine for Spanish aficionados ignoring any serious effort to make it more fitting for an encyclopedia then you can have your bias article. However, just know that by distorting the truth to make Spanish look more important all you are doing is ruining Wikipedia's reputation. I know that the US will soon be a Spanish speaking country and become like Latin America but like I said before the US is not the world.

It's really odd that you're saying that mentioning Spanish usage in the United States is making it look more important than it is but then that it's okay to also mention it in other countries. But hey, if you give up then you give up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that references to the US are relevant because this is the English Wikipedia, and the US is the largest English-speaking country, in terms of native speakers. --Jotamar (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's endorsing an English-centric POV. It's approprite to mention the US because the US is a big country period. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ONLY mentioning the US makes Spanish look more important than it is because it is not as important in the rest of the world! And yes I know that I said that I had given up but your comment makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you recommend? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only mentioning the U.S. as Spanish being a popular foreign langauge wouldn't make Spanish look more important; it would actually make it look less important because the U.S. is only one country. If we can find sources for other countries, then they should be included. Kman543210 (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Need etymology assistance

Can we get some help regarding an etymology question at Talk:Andrés Quintana Roo? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Averting an edit war

Could someone who knows Spanish help avoid an edit war involving this edit and the ones immediately preceding it? Perhaps an erudite clarification at talk:Nena would help. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Michael Hardy, but "nena" [male:"nene"] is a correct Spanish word. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a mexican native speaker, nena is perfect spanish. See the Royal Spanish Academy of Language dictionary:nene,nena. In English you may say baby or babe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-oficiality in Mexico

Hey, I need to say that in México Spanish language is not the unique official language, it's Co-oficial, the same with Spain and others in LatinAmerica.

--EmilioPin (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, Mexico doesn't have an official language at the national level, but Spanish is the de facto or national language. I believe the other countries that have co-official languages on the map, the other languages besides Spanish are co-official at the federal level, not just in certain regions/states. Spain only has one official language at the federal level; it's co-official languages are only co-official in their respective regions/communities. Kman543210 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Mexican, I know that at the constitutional level is said that all the 62 and other Spoken languages in México are as official as Spanish.

See the México's article at .es wikipedia, or look it up in the constitution.

I want to be friendly, please, look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilioPin (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just looked it up, and it states "No existe declaratoria constitucional de lengua oficial. La Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas señala que todas las lenguas indígenas que se hablen son lenguas nacionales e igualmente válidas en todo el territorio nacional" which basically says that there is no constitutional declaration of an official language and that the general language rights law gives equal status to indigenous languages. This is not the same as co-official languages. It basically gives protection to the indigenous languages, but Spanish is the language that is spoken by the most people and the most in government in Mexico, so that's why it's said "de facto" official. This is just like English in the U.S. which has no federal official status but is considered "de facto". Kman543210 (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is not the official language in México.

Please, read this article:

es:Idioma_español

It says (in the right side)

México no tiene formalmente lengua oficial. El español, lengua mayoritaria y oficial de facto, es definido junto con las lenguas autóctonas como «lengua nacional».

Translation:

México hasn't got a sore language. The Spanish, is the majority spoken language, it's deffined, as other languages as <<national languages>>.

That's also said at the Mexican Constitution.

-- If there's a document in Náhuatl, that would be right for example or in any other spoken language... --

Thank you.

--EmilioPin (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And what are Mexicans mute now. Spanish is the language spoken by all or most of all Mexicans and the only one used by the government. So please stop overreacting.DanishWolf (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That what you say is true for Peru and Bolivia too, but only México appears as having just one official languaje.200.1.20.227 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic Population of the United States 2006 Census Update

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Percent Change Variation in Hispanic Population between years 2000 to 2006 [1] and if we use the 2000 Census as initial reference [2] we can update the following figures by State: (Arkansas: 5.1 %, Georgia: 8.4 %, South Carolina: 3.8 %, Tennessee: 3.4 %, North Carolina: 7.3 %, South Carolina: 2.1 %, Nevada: 30 %, Alabama: 2.5 %, Maryland: 6.3 %, Alaska: 5.9 %, Virginia: 6.7 %, New Hampshire: 2.4 %, Maine: 1 %, Delaware: 6.8 %, Kentucky: 2.1 %, Utah: 12.6 %, Indiana: 4.8 %, Iowa: 3.8%, Arizona: 34.7 %, Missouri: 2.9 %, Nebraska: 7.5 %, Oklahoma: 7.1 %, Oregon: 10.9 %, North Dakota: 1.6 %, Minnesota: 3.9 %, Idaho: 10.7 %, West Virginia: 0.9 %, Florida: 22.6 %, Mississippi: 1.9 %, Wisconsin: 4.8 %, Pennsylvania: 4.2 %, Montana: 2.6 %, Washington: 9.8 %, Rhode Island: 11.1 %, Vermont: 1.1 %, Colorado: 21.4 %, Kansas: 8.7 %, Texas: 39.8 %, Ohio: 2.3 %, Illinois: 15 %, Connecticut: 11.4 %, New Jersey: 16 %, Michigan 4 %, California: 38.3 %, Massachusetts: 8.0 %, Louisiana: 2.7 %, Hawaii: 8.1 %, Wyoming: 7.1 %, New Mexico: 47 %, New York: 16.4 %, District of Columbia: 8.3 %).

So the hispanophone map in the world should be updated in order to reflect this new facts. Ascosphaera (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sole language in Mexico?

As far as I know Mexico's Constitution has in the same level the Spanish and the indigenous dialects and languages present in its territory, and therefore in the "Hispanosphere" they placed the Spanish as a sole speaked recognized language, although more than the 80% of the population in Mexico speaks Spanish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.36.38 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

G

The article is not clear on the phonetics of the letter G (ga, ge, gue, gi, gui, go, gu, güe, güi). I'm not able fix this myself, because I bearly speak english. Please someone else do it.200.1.20.227 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Hard Edge Politics

The hard edge shown along the Brazilian border in the maps is utterly ridiculous and false. Not only was much of what is now the Brazilian Amazon basin claimed by Spain, but it was visited by Spanish explorers and missionaries. Many people close to Brazils western borders with Spanish speaking countries have long standing contacts and business with the Spanish speaking countries that go back centuries. In places like the Peruvian-Brazilian border a dialect of Spanish, known as Amazoniac Spanish - which has absorbed many words from the indigenous languages of the Amazon - actually exists on both sides of the border. The hard edge of these maps is but a fantasy of the bureaucrats of distant Brasilia and middle classes of Sao Paulo, Rio de Jeneiro, etc, who want to deny the reality of western Brazil they find so discomfiting. By the way - Brazil would be a better run country if their officials stopped wasting time manipulating articles in the English, Portuguese and Spanish wikipedias Provocateur (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish language in Australia

Is Spanish also spoken in Australia? --Master of the Aztecs (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, but should not be on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbleDude22 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is a minority language in Australia, however, at a level which would not deem it worthwhile for inclusion. Of the 21,000,000 inhabitants, ABS 2001 statistics (see ABS statistical release) identifies less that 100,000 speakers of the language (I believe the wiki article concurs with this). There is also a tendency for the language not to be passed down generations, ie whilst children of Spanish speaking migrants may understand spoken Spanish, their ability to speak the language deteriorates with each generation (see University of Melbourne: Australian Migration and Language study 2007). This probably doesn't satisfy the wikipedia 'sourcing' requirements, but it is worth taking into account as to why Spanish should not be included as a language in Australia.

On the other hand, Spanish is occasionally included as one of the "Help in other Languages" languages when announcements or information is issued to the public (such as Public Health or Council information). However, languages such as Greek, Italian, Vietnamese, Croatian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Indonesia, and Somali are also included, with the first four the most common, and the remainder sometimes omitted. I have included a link to the Melbourne City Council website which shows details at the footer of the documents as an example: [3].

With the exception of the above, Spanish has no application in the public eye. I would probably then suggest that it should not be included as a language spoken in Australia, no more so than any other language. While it is true that there are speakers of Spanish in Australia, I think that Wikipedia articles as a whole should reflect 'substance over form'. Is Spanish spoken in Australia? Technically, yes - but is it an Australian language? Probably, no. The Red Threat (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish to english /Enlish to spanish

I have bought a Mitsubishi Pajero and someone told me that pajero means wanker in Spanish. Does wanker in spanish mean the same as it does in english. Murray

See http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=263788

Also see WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTDICDEF. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn´t know what wanker meant; according to Cambridge Dictionary:

wank Show phonetics

verb [I] UK OFFENSIVE

to masturbate (= excite your own or someone else's sex organs by hand)

So in this sense, yes, pajero means wanker. That´s why Mitsubishi changed the name of the car in Spain to Montero. Who would buy a wanker?--Xareu bs (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy of Language) dictionary, the first meaning is maybe what the name of the car means, I do not know it, but it seems it is a kind of truck to carry straw. The second meaning in some countries means someone who masturbates him self, it is offensive. In many countries like Mexico it is not used with that sense, this may explain the controversy in that cycling page. I am a Spanish native speaker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially, "pajero" means "person who carries straw", but at least in Spain the slang meaning wanker is widely used. And yes, that's why Mitsubishi decided to commercialise this vehicle as "Mitsubishi Montero", after realising that the poor sales figures could respond to this. I wouldn't buy a Wanker, afterall...

Why can't *mitsubishi be a Spanish word? --84.61.183.89 (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Voiced vs. voiceless

I think the table could be improved to reflect this information; however, I am reluctant to touch it as I am certain that I would muck it up. If someone could set up the table to allow for it, I would be happy to enter the information. Murray F. White (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the easy thing and just said above the table that symbols to the right are voiced. Since that's how it's always laid out anyway, explicitely including that the table as such would probably be unnecessarily redundant. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked more closely. The table jumped out at me and I focused on it. Thnaks for clearing it up. I have a question for you, so I will go to your talkpage if you will indulge me. Murray F. White (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stress

The article says that words ending in "s" or a vowel are stressed on the next-to-last syllable, and all others are stressed on the last syllable. But words that end in "n" are also stressed on the next-to-last syllable. For example, bailan (you all [formal]/they dance) is pronounced BAI-lan, gustan (you all [formal]/they are pleasing) is pronounced GUS-tan, and comienzan (you all [formal]/they begin) is pronounced co-MIEN-zan. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. Although it looks like somebody fixed it already. The section on accent placement is reading pretty nicely right now. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody deleted again the "n". Well, let me tell you that RAE's rules for placing the accent mark are based on statistical frequency of the accentuation of different kinds of words. If most words ending in "-n" were stressed on their last syllabe, the rule would prescribe not to put an accent mark on these words. So I put the /n/ back. --El Mexicano (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that we're going by what the source says. If you'd like to see a longer answer, you can check out the source or you can look at here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of source is that, but first, it is unverifiable, and second, there is no any official Spanish Academy statement that would say that. That statement has no sense this way, because contradicts to the official accentuation rules established by the Royal Spanish Academy. --El Mexicano (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're talking about is orthographic rules and what that section in the article is talking about is phonological rules. Despite what you may think, there is a difference and the statement is, indeed verifiable. I recommend that you take a look at the source. Luckily enough, it's available online. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the orthographic rules are based on the statistical occurence of the different kinds of word stress. When Royal Spanish Academy established those rules, they didn't do it randomly just as they wanted, but they did know what and why. Anyway, I looked at the source, and it seems to me too superficial. It doesn't take in consideration that the -n marks the plural third person of verbs in any tense, except the futuro simple with stressed endings. You can just take a longer text and count how many words end in -an, -en, -on and -án, -én, -ín, -ón. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the case that the statistical pattern has changed since the orthographic rules were set in place. Either way, we shouldn't be inferring from the decrees of a prescriptivist organization for what is better handled by studies from objective and descriptivist linguists. You say that the orthographic rules are based on statistical occurrences of word stress, but the cited source is a study of just that. I see what you're saying about the potential problems in methodology; perhaps we can get a greater understanding or alternate voices regarding Spanish stress by looking at some of the other studies that the source points to.

What we shouldn't do is change the information in the article to something the citation doesn't say while keeping the citation. That's academically dishonest. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I've just made some statistics with NOTEPAD++, based on the full text of Don Quijote. The following data is just for informing purposes, I know that own research is not allowed in Wikipedia, but the results of my analysis are really interesting:

• Last-but-one syllabe stressed words ending in -n:
  • words ending in -on (without prepositions "con"): 4,284
  • words ending in -an: 4,296
  • words ending in -en (without prepositions "en"): 2,974
  • Total of last-but-one syllabe stressed words ending in -n: 11,554
• Last syllabe stressed words ending -n:
  • words ending in -ón: 1,476
  • words enging in -án: 455
  • words ending in -én: 500
  • words ending in -ín: 80
  • words ending in -ún: 566
  • Total of last syllabe stressed words ending in -n: 3,077

So just compare the two results. That's evident and trivial. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing I forgot to comment. You've said: Perhaps it is the case that the statistical pattern has changed since the orthographic rules were set in place. — Well, it would be only possible if accentuation of Spanish words had changed since the rules had been established. The accentuation of Spanish words has not changed for at least 8 centuries, or, if it did, the tendency is just the opposite: from last syllabe to last but one, and from last but one, to antepenult. Cf. Old Spanish avié, guardarién, reína > Modern Spanish había, guardarían, réina. From the other hand, the rules on when and where to put the accent mark, are relatively new, not older than from the 19th or 20th century. --El Mexicano (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know that we can't make any OR generalizations, why did you bother? You can reason until you're blue in the face but we've got to work with sources. Period. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you will believe an evident stupidness in an unreliable source written by anybody of who we can't even know who is and where he worked from, without any primary sources or references, then let's go, I can say just sorry. --El Mexicano (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I gave you the source. here is the guy's webpage where he's put his publication list. He's no Chompsky, but he's a reliable enough linguist. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

There's a tag at the top of this article that says this article conflicts with Spanish in the United States. What's the conflict? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the talk page there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sole official language in Peru and Bolivia at the national level

In the map Spanish appears as being coofficial at the national level, and I think that's not true. Quechua, Aymara and others are indeed official, but only in the areas where they are predominant. According to the Constitution of Peru: "Artículo 48°. Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, también lo son el quechua, el aimara y las demás lenguas aborígenes, según la ley." I would appreciate if someone fixed the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for Bolivia, I also think Spanish is the sole official language at the national level, according to the current constitution (since february 2009). It clearly states Spanish and other 36 languages are ALL official, yes, but also that each department MUST HAVE at least two official languages, ONE OF WICH must necessarily be Spanish. Here's the article: "Artículo 5: I. Son idiomas oficiales del Estado el castellano y todos los idiomas de las naciones y pueblos indígena originario campesinos, que son el aymara, araona, baure, bésiro, canichana, cavineño, cayubaba, chácobo, chimán, ese ejja, guaraní, guarasu’we, guarayu, itonama, leco, machajuyai-kallawaya, machineri, maropa, mojeño-trinitario, mojeño-ignaciano, moré, mosetén, movina, pacawara, puquina, quechua, sirionó, tacana, tapiete, toromona, uru-chipaya, weenhayek, yaminawa, yuki, yuracaré y zamuco. II. El Gobierno plurinacional y los gobiernos departamentales deben utilizar al menos dos idiomas oficiales. Uno de ellos debe ser el castellano, y el otro se decidirá tomando en cuenta el uso, la conveniencia, las circunstancias, las necesidades y preferencias de la población en su totalidad o del territorio en cuestión. Los demás gobiernos autónomos deben utilizar los idiomas propios de su territorio, y uno de ellos debe ser el castellano." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is correct for Paraguay, where both Spanish and Guarani are treated equally in the constitution, being both official nationwide. But this is the only case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

English Spanish Translator Org (External Links)

English Spanish Translator Org is the biggest Spanish community in English with more than 25.000 users. I am one of them, I was going to add it to this page, but I saw that it was better to publish it here first: http://www.english-spanish-translator.org/ Please see at the bottom of the page: Threads: 5,325, Posts: 28,003, Members: 28,257, Active Members: 6,300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.33.60 (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Spanish to English Language Translator

Viman007 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I would like to submit a mobile spanish to english language translator under useful links. The website address is www.spanish.mobi. What is the best way to get this link included on wikipedia? Any help or guidance would be mcuh appreciated.

"Lingua Franca" versus "Official Language"

I've noticed quite a bit of conflict on this talk page apropos Spanish as "officially recognized" in certain countries/areas.

A number of countries —for instance, Mexico— have no official language at all. And while Quechua and Aymara —along with Spanish— are official languages in Peru and Bolivia (and native Aymara speakers outnumber native Spanish speakers in Bolivia), no reasonable man would dispute that Spanish is the lingua franca of said countries. When 2 or more Bolivian, Peruvian, or Mexican strangers communicate, they usually do so in Spanish.

Perhaps this article ought to be cleaned up so as to list countries/areas where Spanish is the lingua franca (regardless of whether there are other official languages —or none whatsoever) vis-a-vis other areas —such as the southwestern USA— where Spanish is widely spoken, but is clearly not the lingua franca.

This would probably clarify its content a great deal. Pine (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Spanish being revived in the Philippines?

I have heard that Spanish is being taught in Filipino schools.Would be better to include "Spanish is being revived in the Philippines after it was phased out by the Americans. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not unless some more info is provided and a supporting source is cited re the alleged "revival". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question: Why aren't there audio samples of languages on language pages

Pretty much asked it in the headline. I know that on band pages there is often a short sample of their music, and that there are usualy samples of famous speeches given by a person if appropriate on their page, but no audio samples on language pages. This is a pretty obvious idea, so I imagine that it was debated at some earlier time and decided against. Just curious as to why; something having to do with agreeing on what accent to include? 83.31.102.40 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

The introduction of this article seems to contradict List of languages by number of native speakers (this article claims Spanish is second, the linked article claims fourth). Am I not understanding something? Thanks. 121.217.128.6 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the factual accuracy of that article is disputed as you can see when you go the article at the of the page. So there's bound to information that's wrong there. Also, according to Ethnologue, one of the primary sources of List of languages by number of native speakers is Ethnologue, it references Spanish as being the second most spoken language in terms of native speakers but not in the article. Let me try to update that article so that there won't be a contradiction. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

The Philippines is not a country where Spanish is spoken by a significant amount of people. So there is no reason to keep adding it to "a significant number of the populations" section. Even though it was a former Spanish colony, it doesn't mean that Spanish is spoken today by a significant amount of people. Yes Spanish impacted the languages in the Philippines but we don't say things such as: Latin is spoken by a significant part of the U.S. or the U.K. because English borrowed words a whole bunch of words from Latin. Britain after all was controlled by Rome in the past, in the same sense that the Philippines was controlled by Spain. Spanish in the Philippines is already discussed in the article, adding it to the regions with significant populations is misleading and untrue. If you also check CIA World Factbook, Spanish is not identified as a major spoken language. Also please refer to Spanish in the Philippines. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But Pilita Corrales speaks Spanish, among other (old) young people. While it may not be spoken by a particular community, individual speakers are still out there, probably in the millions, so please stop removing the Philippines from the list.--23prootie (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the source you added and I have to say it is dubious. First of all, the Philippines did not conduct a "1988 census" which the book implies. Secondly, it combines Chabacano as a form of Spanish, but it is Spanish-based and not entirely Spanish. It's like Spanish is to Latin. It's a separate language. Also this source, Ethnologue, (specializes in language studies and is used for a considerable amount of other language pages including this one and List of languages by native speakers) which actually used data from a census year, only puts Spanish as 2660 for the 1990 census. Even combining it Chabacano with Spanish using Ethnologue figures does not even put it at a million. I'm going to put dubious tags in the meanwhile. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have to say that I don't know where you were getting your figures from. Under page 65, which you stated that that's where the information was retrieved, did not reference anything about 2.8 million as a total amount of speakers and the other figures you were putting. I changed them based on the information given from the source you provided. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another source that places the number of speakers as 2,900,000, close to the number I suggested. There are sources out there that places the Spanish community in the islands a 1-3 million. And while most of them are old people and are slowly dying out, most of them are still alive so I would give you some caution before counting them out.--23prootie (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the new source you added is the correct section? Pg. 120 by Michael Clyne is all about the German language and doesn't mention anything about Spanish. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also if you look above, Talk:Spanish language#Spanish in Philippines, those figures that you have been adding have been seen as unreliable by other editors and what it seems like, multiple times in the past. Furthermore, I'm not the only person who disagrees in combining Spanish and Chabacano if you look at the thread above again. Chabacano is a different language and as such should be excluded from the figure. The 2.9 million seems to have included Chabacano. True that there are sources out there but that doesn't mean that they are at all reliable. Just take a look at the first source you added, it was already completely wrong about the census year and I easily refuted those numbers along with the census year with a more verifiable source (Ethnologue) that I'm sure other editors would agree with. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Spanish is spoken at any relevant level in the Phillipines is a delirium. Spanish language in the Philippines states (my bolds):

According to the 1990 Philippine census, there are 2,660 native Spanish speakers in the Philippines.[4] An additional 607,200 speak Chabacano, a Spanish-based creole. However, the Instituto Cervantes in Manila puts the number of Spanish-speakers in the Philippines in the area of two to three million.[5] (failed verification on January 2009) which includes non-native speakers as well, meaning Filipinos who speak Spanish as second, or third language. Some estimates range the number of speakers at 2.9 million with about 1.9 native speakers.(source not available online) The 2,450,000 figure is based on census figures from 1988, and includes 689,000 Chabacano speakers in addition to 1,761,690 Spanish speakers, per [6] (unreliable source that mentions a non-existent census).

The verifiable data for the Philippines give a number of less than 3000 speakers! And the The Cervantes Institute source, now unavailable (!!) is not a primary source (it's not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines, unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source! And the other sources present neither, since they present gross errors. The Philippines should be removed from this article. The Ogre (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for the 2.9 million figure is available online. Just search the title and it should come up as an electronic book. But I did not find anything there based on the listed page number or section. Also, I think that those figures (2.8-2.9 million) represents people who have knowledge of the Spanish language and not necessarily speak it during everyday conversation. There's a difference between people who know the language and people who speak it. I took Spanish as a fourth language but I don't think in any way I was or will be included in the any censuses for people who speak Spanish. This distinction between actual speakers and people who possess knowledge seems to have been reflected upon the Philippine census numbers where there was less than 3000 people counted. I do agree with removing the Philippines per the reasons cited above. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Conclution about Spanish in Philippines. There are 3,016,773 Spanish and chavacano (Spanish creole) speakers cervantesvirtual.com, mepsyd.es, spanish-differences.com. There are 1,200,000 chavacano speakers as a first and secondary language, and 689,000 as a first language. Then, there are 1,816,773 Spanish speakers but only 439,000 with native knowladge (realinstitutoelcano.org (Francisco Moreno and Jaime Otero to 2007), ucm.es (page 33)) and no more than 3,000 Spanish speakers as a first language.--Migang2g (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it´s important to consider all these figures. It´s possible to deny them saying that there are only less than 3,000 Spanish speakers, and that chavacano (Spanish creole) is not Spanish. However there are hundred million of English creole speakers. For example in India and Nigeria. Then these speakers aren´t English speakers but they are considered as English speakers in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population . --Migang2g (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

¿Filipinas?

I'm adding the Philippines back to the list in the infobox since it does not specify whether or not only first language speakers should be counted or should other speakers be counted as well. I also believe that caution should be used when using the 1990 census or any census for that matter in the country since it does not specify how it counted the mother language of a person and whether or not it counted a natively multilingual people at multiple times. It also should be noted that the use of a language within a community is irrelevant to the number of speakers and that native speakers may continue to exist even though they may do not necessarily use the language to communicate with others.--23prootie (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The first part of the infobox references "Spanish speaking" countries/territories or countries/territories that speak Spanish as main language. The second part of the infobox references countries with "and significant populations of" which seems to be a continuation of the first statement which referenced Spanish as a main language. So addition of the Philippines would not fit this criteria because Spanish is not a main language in the Philippines. Out of the sources we have, the 1990 census is the most reliable so that's what we have to work with for now. Plus, in terms of reliability, credibility and verifiability, census numbers usually go to the top of the list so I really don't agree with your caution to the 1990 census. I also haven't seen any recent textbook (not including history textbooks) referencing Spanish today in the Philippines or the country as a Spanish speaking country. So again, referencing the country in the infobox does not seem to fit what should be included in the infobox. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also 2 mil, 3 mil, you keep changing the estimates so it's really hard to believe if what your saying is true, does not seem like a "significant amount" of people speak the language. 2 to 3 percent of population is something I wouldn't call a language where a significant amount of people speak the language. Also, please refer to my thread below. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

A "Criticism" section appeared recently in this article. It doesn't link to any sources and makes some incomplete points. (E.g., I'm not sure what is meant by "a sister isn't a female brother." Perhaps someone can clarify? I've never read any publications declaring "se" to be only a reflexive pronoun, but "third-person indirect-object pronoun changes to a third-person reflexive pronoun" suggests that it is. Also, I wasn't aware of any "propaganda" campaign claiming that needed debunking.) I could mark the section as unsourced, but the whole section should probably just be removed. Or can it be salvaged? Rod (A. Smith) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it can not be. This is just politically correct "crap"! Completely unsourced, OR and POV. All languages are somehow discriminatory... Removed the section. The Ogre (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Total speakers vs. actual speakers.

The addition of countries in the infobox seems to be a matter of dispute. But to make things clearer, there is little significance in the total number of speakers of Spanish because it's all about actual usage or how many people use/speak the language. The reason countries like the U.S. is included in the infobox because there is a significant amount of people WHO ACTUALLY SPEAK the language during everyday conversation. There is no need to include countries that speak Spanish as a second language (or higher) in the infobox such as Canada, Brazil or the Philippines because the actual usage of the language is NOT spoken by a significant population but rather known by a certain amount of people. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox is specified that spanish is known as a foreing language in countries where spanish is not official (Brazil, the Philippines, European Union ...etc). Countries with Spanish official have darker files coulored.--85.54.172.22 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition of the term "speakers"

I would have to apologize to Elockid. I am in no mood to read your walls of text so could you please keep it simple. The term "speakers" refers to people who are able to understand and possibly speak a language. They do not, however, necessarily mean people who use a language all the time. Therefore, anyone who can understand and possibly speak a language may be treated as a "speaker" even if they rarely use that language.--23prootie (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the walls of text. I'll try to keep it simpler for others. I think deleting the countries in the infobox was the best move to keep disputes, not only the Philippines but some countries like Morocco and Brazil from having issues about why wasn't it on the list.

But in terms of "speakers", I don't think it necessarily mean that. For example, for English, I'm sure that there are many countries that are in the same boat as Spanish where there are regions with significant populations that know the language but don't necessarily speak it. If the English language page had a country list, countries such as Bangladesh or China would be included (per your definition below). I don't think that those countries would necessarily be added or thought of a country where English is spoken by a significant population because more than 1 million people have the ability to speak English. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Significant population

The criteria I used to define the "significant population" is either a percentage of over 5% or a speaking population of over a million.--23prootie (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Naming and origin" section

It just presents the point of view in Spain, not in the other Spanish-speaking countries. I mean, it doesn't say how the Spanish language is called in other countries (español or castellano), as the article in Spanish does. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_español#Pol.C3.A9mica_sobre_espa.C3.B1ol_o_castellano --L Lawliet (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Spanish from Spain, I was surprised to hear that it is "rare" to use the term "español" to refer to the Spanish language, particularly when it says: "even when contrasting it with languages such as French and English".

The prescriptive opinion of the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, quoted in the wikipedia gives preference to "español", particularly in an international context and reserves "castellano" to scientific usage or in contrast with other languages.

I don't have the statistics (are there any?); but this seems to me a very plausible description of actual usage.

Perhaps, the "rare" label comes from agraph in that Spanish wikipedia article that claims to show the preferred use of both "español" and "castellano" in Spanish-speaking countries. However, there is no source for it, nor does it correspond well with the written content of the article; which doesn't give a clear geographical distribution of either name or explains their usage beyond some ideologically-based preferences.

I can't find any more information now, but I would be for rewriting that introduction.

MiG-25 (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree on re-writing the intro and the "naming" section. My impression is that "Castellano" is used within Spain for political reasons, and that common usage of the word "Spanish", especially in an international context, significantly outweighs the PC-assertion that "Castillian" somehow has equal status as the name "Spanish". Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

HAITI. Numbers are wrong

Those numbers doesn´t add...and I doubt that 2 million Haitians have Spanish as their first language.--79.146.210.181 (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd-sounding wording

From the lead section:

"Latin, which comprises about 95% of Spanish, ..."

Seems an odd thing to say. Is it trying to say that 95% of Spanish words derive from Latin? 81.152.168.210 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

It appears to be that way, yes. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this website?

Jjperkins (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Hi, read the article with interest, some varied viewpoints here. How about considering this simplified verb conjugating site for inclusion in this articles footnotes? http://spanishverbconjugator.org Regards.

Second after Mandarin? No qualifiers? How about English?

The main article paragraph above the table of contents to this article, Spanish departs from caution when it states, without qualification, that

"Today, 329 million people speak Spanish as a native language. It is the second most spoken language in the world in terms of native speakers, after Mandarin Chinese.[1][2]"

The nuanced statement of the sidebar of this article seems more accurate:

Ranking 2 or 3 (native speakers) 3 (total speakers)

(all emphasis supplied)

The rest of Wikipedia supports the sidebar's more cautious conclusion, which presumably takes into account the number of English speakers:

Compare, Wikipedia on English Language

First language: 309–400 million Second language: 199–1,400 million[2][3] Overall: 500 million–1.8 billion[4][3]

Quickly adding up the population of several overwhelmingly English-speaking countries yields a number rather close to the above 400 million top estimate:

United States Population - 2009 estimate 308,147,000[2] (3rd4)

United Kingdom Population - 2009 estimate 61,113,205[5] (22nd)

Australia Population - 2009 estimate 22,076,000[3] (51st)

Not to mention native English speakers in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Ghana, etc., etc.

See generally,

Countries where English is a major language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_countries#Countries_where_English_is_a_major_language

And

English as a global language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_countries#English_as_a_global_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.219 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that that statement about Spanish speakers being the second most spoken language is based on native speakers/first language speakers not total. The U.S. particularly has a large immigrant population where English serves as a second language not as a first language. This is the same for the U.K. and Australia. The countries you listed are in the same boat as well. Although English is a language of importance in those countries, it does not mean that people speak it as a first language. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consonant clusters

Are there any Spanish words which have the consonants ll or ñ in a consonant cluster? --84.61.183.89 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conllevar" - to bear (suffering), to imply. Due to "yeísmo", "adyacente", "cónyuge" or "subyacer" would be phonological examples of clusters involving the same allophone. I can't think of any example with "ñ". --Gandalf57 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish language does not exist.

Spanish or Castilian? Sorry, this needs to be clarified. Legally talking you can consider Spanish to be any of the four official languages in Spain. That is: Euzkera, Gallician, Castillian or Catalan. So I understand this article is about the Castilian language, and not of the Spanish language, that technically talking and as is stated by the Spanish Constitution is one of the Spanish languages. Similar, the article refers to the English language, and not as the British language, as this last one does not exist. Can somebody give some lines about this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.170.2 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you advocating that we rename this article "Castilian language"? While the issue you bring up has merit in Spain and in the Spanish language itself, English usage overwhelmingly favors "Spanish" over Castilian. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Español and Castellano exists as accepted names in Spanish with Español being more preferred. This is the same case with Spanish vs. Castillian in English. Both are accepted names for the language, but Castillian is the name less preferred. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Epañol" is certainly more common in Spain than "Castellano", regardless of which is more 'accurate' or 'correct'. Therefore, the assertion that "In Spain and in some parts of the Spanish speaking world, but not all, it is rare to use the term español (Spanish) to refer to this language" is not correct. 94.76.245.31 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

94.76.245.31, How can you be so sure about how the whole of hispanósfera calls the language? FYI, here in Argentina "Castellano" is far common than Español. But, because I know that in other regions the opposite is true, I wouldn't be as assertive as you in stating such a thing. Think twice, next time. --IANVS (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)