Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 96) (bot |
→Christopher Columbus: new section |
||
Line 624:
*{{al|Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine}}
Discussion at the Talk page, for the umpteenth time, on whether the [[osteopathic manipulative treatment]] component of DO training should be described as pseudoscientific. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
== Christopher Columbus ==
Information in the article which exists in the note after Italian in context of Christopher Columbus and his Italianness. "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;"
I'm interested if this information is fringe: ''"the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity"'' I have not come across this fact anywhere. I was researching the English sources and I was looking for the Italian sources, I found this in the Italian source.
"La parola italiano non è sempre esistita (il che è ovvio), né (il che è meno ovvio) è nata a poca distanza di tempo da quella su cui è foggiata, cioè l’antico nome Italia. La terra che Greci e Romani chiamavano così – riferendo il toponimo a un’entità geografica dai confini variabili – non era, in effetti, popolata da italiani (itali antichissimi e popoli italici non avrebbero potuto usurpare quel termine) come non lo era l’Italia alto-medievale in cui si ponevano le basi di quella moderna. Il termine che oggi usiamo per indicare i suoi abitanti sembra dunque sorgere assieme al patrimonio linguistico che, prima di qualsiasi altro, contribuì a delinearne l’identità culturale. Cioè il volgare, alla cui sintesi moderna si darà più tardi, e si dà tuttora, quello stesso nome: italiano Questo termine è alieno – per ragioni che difficilmente possono considerarsi casuali – dall’uso dei fondatori letterari: Dante e Petrarca non lo impiegano mai, e come vedremo quella che individua nel primo il padre della lingua italiana è una formula tanto consueta quanto paradossale....'''The word Italian has not always existed (which is obvious), nor (which is less obvious) was born a short time away from the one on which it is modeled, i.e. the ancient name Italy. The land that the Greeks and Romans called this way - referring the toponym to a geographical entity with variable borders - was not, in fact, populated by Italians (very ancient Italians and Italic peoples would not have been able to usurp that term) nor it was high-medieval Italy in which the foundations of the modern one were laid. The term we use today to indicate its inhabitants therefore seems to arise together with the linguistic heritage which, before any other, contributed to delineating its cultural identity.''' That is, the vulgar, to the whose modern synthesis will be given later, and still is, that same name: Italian. This term is alien - for reasons that can hardly be be considered casual – from the use of the literary founders: Dante and Petrarca they never employ it, and as we will see the one that identifies in the first the father of the Italian language is a formula as usual as it is paradoxical. (Lorenzo Tomasin Italiano Storia di una parola)[https://iris.unive.it/bitstream/10278/28571/1/Tomasindef%20(3).pdf]
*Is the information from note after Italian, formulated like this fringe information? Thank you. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 08:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
| |||