This is an archive of past discussions about Spanish language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe consensus is that [v] is NOT an allophone of [f] in Spanish. The use of /v/ (voiced labiodental fricative) in any realization has all but disappeared in all Spanish-speaking countries since the 16th century. The Academy considers it pedantic speech. Cf the main article on Spanish phonology, where [v] does not appear at all. --Gandalf57 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That category is probably added automatically with template Neo, as used with the strange word Preantepenultimate in this page. --Jotamar (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the {{neo}} tag. The word, while technical and obscure to non-specialists, does not appear to be a neologism (see [1] and [2]). I added some clarification—feel free to improve or revert. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Moroccan Spanish
Moroccan Spanish - this article should either be expanded considerably if this dialect in deed exists or quickly deleted. Is there even an article about Moroccan French (the country's second language)? Aaker (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The Section Concerning Names of Numbers in Spanish
Most wikipedia articles discussing major languages (e.g. Portugueese, French) contain sections dicussing names of both ordinal and cardinal numbers in that language, and typically a section discussing names of days of the week and month names, and similar such information. This article lacks that.
Is there a Spanish MOS for usse of diacritical marks?
I am doing research on how diacritical marks are discussed in various style guides on Wikipedia. (See: User:Buddhipriya/LanguageTransliterationStyleGuides) Is there a Manual of Style or Naming Conventions page that covers rules for when and how to include diacritics for Spanish on Wikipedia articles? Thanks for your help with this. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My recent edits
I noticed that the El Salvador entry showed 7,913,743 as the population, 7,913,743 as first-language Spanish speakers, no additional-language Spanish speakers, and 7,890,002 total Spanish speakers. I changed the number of first-language speakers to 7,890,002.
I was unable to verify the population figure in the cited supporting source, and I added an {{fv}} tag
The meaning of the first sentence is wrong.
It (that should be written as "¿Cómo cómo cómo?") just means "what what what?", of course it can be understood as "what do you mean?" but never as "how do I eat" that is "¿Cómo como?".
The correct translation of "What do you mean?" is "¿Qué quieres decir?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.25.150 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"¿Cómo como como?" would mean "How about the way I eat". The first "Cómo" questions about the attitude of the listener. The third "Como" means "I eat", and combined with the second one means "how I eat", "the way I eat". Thus, "¿Cómo como como?" would be "How about how I eat", or, more explained, "What are you saying about the way I eat?"
In the response "¡Como como como!", the first and the last "como" are "I eat", and the second one, asociated with the first, indicates "how I eat". Thus, "¡como como como!" means "I eat as I eat".
There are other interesting examples:
"¿No nada nada?" -> "Don't you swim at all?".
"No traje traje" -> "I didn't take a swimsuit".
I only mention this because a number of users have pointed out that there are many countries where Spanish is not spoken by the entire population. One user mentioned Guatemala where only 60% of the population speaks Spanish. Other countries include, Paraguay, Peru and Bolivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The numbers not speaking Spanish are decreasing all the time but it is true there are still many. Thanks, SqueakBox05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not exactly a fact, the number of Spanish speakers is increasing everyday, specially as a second language in Brazil, Europe and the U.S., but also as the first tongue in the Caribbean, Belize and in non-hispanic indigenous peoples of Hispanic countries. Almost witouht doubts your Guatemalan's figure is wrong as all people speaks Spanish there. Reverver38 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Spanish in Philippines
I think that is needed to paint Philippines, because there are 1,816,389 speakers as a second lenguage and 689,000 chavacano speakers (spanish creole). Total: 2.450.000 speakers. Fuente: Instituto Cervantes, 1997. Some sources says that there are more than 1 million chavacano speakers. Another figure is 2,900,000 spanish speakers Sí, Sain.
Since I've recently changed the article to mention them and cite sources, I guess I ought to point out the lead sentence in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The source they use is an Italian almanac. I consulted an Italian wikipedian who happened to have the source that Instituto Cervantes cites and that almanac didn't cite its source either. So I do not believe it's a reliable source. I mean, where did it come from? The census in this case would be the most reliable source. --Chris S. (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But the point is that WP is not in the business of judging which source is the most reliable and reporting only what that particular source says. WP should report what (perhaps conflicting) assertions are made by sources which meet WP:RS guidelines, and should attribute whatever each source asserts to that particular source. If there are conflicts, WP should comment on the conflicts, but should not take a position about which source might be right and which other source might be wrong. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that there are only 2,658 native speakers according to census 1990, but this census also says that there are only 32,802 native speakers of english [3], and in the map of english language, Philippines is with colour. The same happens with another countries like India. There are only around 200,000 native speakers. Then, I think that it´s necesary to paint colour to Philippines in the spanish map. --Migang2g (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that WP does not discuss sources - in fact that is one of the main discussion we can find here. The Cervantes Institute source is not a primary source (is is 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 (as it is in India), 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! The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The figure of only 2 thousand Spanish speakers as a first language is severly skewed, because it takes into account only recent Spanish immigrants and none of the other Spanish speaking countries currently living in Philippines, the estimate is more like 20 thousand at least.rosadobigd) 12:54,1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.4.72 (talk)
Chavacano is not Spanish. It would be the same as saying that there are more than 800 million Latin speakers in the world today! Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian are no longer considered Latin so you can't use them!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian aren´t spanish creole languages. Chabacano is a spanish creole as there are english creole in Africa or Asia. Chabacano is a spanish word that means "not much elegant" or "rude". This is because it was considered that chabacano was a spanish bad spoken, with mistakes, but spanish. --85.54.160.54 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How about the Filipinos who are working and living in Spain right now? approximately 60,000 filipinos OFW works in Spain. We should consider them as Spanish speakers. I live in Madrid and Ive seen filipinos speaks spanis better than english. we need to change the facts and the map, please colour the philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.156.28 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Chabacano is a language! It is not bad Spanish. Just like Spanish is not Latin bad spoken, with mistakes, but latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This user-created image is just short of overtly polemical, and of dubious reliability, yet it's used in this very high-profile article. Only certain states in the United States are designated as areas where "Spanish is spoken without official recognition." There are no cited sources; for all we know, the creator (apparently a banned sockpuppeteer) made it up out of thin air. Besides the purportedly demographic shading in the states, the creator merely colored Spanish-speaking countries blue, as if, in all these countries, the percentage of Spanish speakers were 100%, and everywhere else it were 0%, except for in the aforementioned states. This image is misleading and without scholarly value, and should not be used.
What might work instead? 1) A map showing countries in which Spanish is recognized as an official language - but then the United States would not be included, which seems to be the underlying point of this point-y map. 2) A map showing regions in which Spanish is spoken as a primary and/or second language - this would be extremely useful, but would take an awful lot of work, and would probably violate WP:NOR if we created it ourselves (although I might be willing to overlook that if the research were solid.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, bear in mind that Spanish and Portuguese are in this case different from Dutch, French and English. This is because the Iberics spread their language and culture in the Americas but the latter made just economical empires. So while in French and Britsh Africa and Asia few people speaks those ones as a secong language, in Hispanic America I don't think spanish knowledge is far from 100%. But anyway thanks for participating in the debate. Reverver38 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
In English there is No Castillian
I want to open the debate, because the text somehow treats equally the Enlish language words "Spanish" and "Castillian". As far as I know the Spanish words "espanol" and "castellano" are not used equally in Hispanic countries. Using "Castillian" we try to literally imitate the Spanish use but, as this is English Wikipedia, we just don't have to abide by those constrictions. Anyway in English I just don't think the word "Castillian" is used at all so it should be dropped from the intro text. Reverver38 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Spanish language
According to the Spanish Constitution there is an official language called Castillian and three others (Catalan, Euzkera, Gallego) official language too in their respective territories of Spain.
So according to this in Spain there is no Spanish language in singular, and we must refer at them as Spanish languages.
Can anyone provide some contributions to this?
Is it wrong to use the term Spanish language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.162.73 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The '78 Spanish Constitution is wrote in Spanish and in Spanish the words "español" y "castellano" are used differently than English words "Spanish" and "Castillian" Reverver38 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't consider talking about Spanish languages, because those languages aren't called Spanish, even being mostly spoken in Spain, and are not the Spanish language. They're languages clearly diferenciated from it, even though two of them (Catalan and Gallego)come from Latin, as Spanish does.
So we should talk about Spanish and languages mostly spoken in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.14.212 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Spanish-speaking Brazilian as second language
In the section Geographic distribution, the was a false information that there are about 12 million spanish speaker in Brazil as second language (more than in the United States), and the sources used are about the recent law for teaching Spanish in secondary school.
Few days ago, I didn't know about this recent law here in Brazil, until this edit which make me search more information about this law on Google. lula sanctioned a law in 2005, which can be read online here, obligating all secondary school offer Spanish classes within 5 years, but the student may choose if they will watch the Spanish classes or not, according to the law, and even today, in 2010 there are many schools in the country that lack of qualified teacher for the classes, and also, even those students of the 3rd (and last) grade of the secondary school that chose to attend to the Spanish classes, they are just beginning to study this year, and are very far for to be a Spanish speaker, it does no fit to what the article was claiming, saying that they are Spanish speaker as second language.--Luizdl (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There aren't 12 million people "speaking Spanish as a second language" in Brazil. To speak as a second language implies speaking it in real life, using it to talk to people in the streets, shops, jobs, etc. This doesn't happen in Brazil. And the sources do not say it happens, they merely talk about (expected) numbers of students. Luizdl is right, the way such "information" is being reported here is false and misleading; it doesn't help readers to understand Brazilian reality. Ninguém (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
WP is based on realiable sources, not on impressionistic subjective views. So, if you have sourced information about the figures of people able to speak Spanish in Brazil, bring them to the article. The goal of this section is to provide a panoramic view of Spanish-speaking figures around the world. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
WP is based on reliable sources, but the reliable sources must be reported correctly. This source does not give the numbers of people speaking Spanish as a second language in Brazil, it talks about a expected number of people learning Spanish in schools - clearly not the same thing. So, while it may be reliable, it cannot be used in this way.
As far as I know, there aren't any reliable figures about people who speak Spanish as a second language in Brazil. Until one is found, the correct information is "unknown", "not available", or a blank space. Regards. Ninguém (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The listing is not for second language speakers, but for foreign language speakers in countries where Spanish is not an official language, as it is clear at the top of the pertaining column. As far as we can give an well-sourced estimate of how many people do learn Spanish (as approximative as it can be), it is better for the occasional reader than expressing no idea at all. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Brazil
Because of the rapidly growing trade ties with its neighbours and the ease with which Portuguese speakers learn Spanish, Spanish is rapidly increasing in Brazil and, if I remember correctly, is spoken by over 5% of the population. If so (please check this) the map should be adjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.53.100 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The forecast is about 12 million students 2010 midyear (11 in the public schools and 1 in private schools), but they can not be considered as bilinguals or as a second language speakers although Spanish and Portuguese are very similar. They are only speakers as a foreing language as in Netherlands many people speaks English.--Migang2g (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that you added this to the talk page. I added the source for the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas about a month ago as well as changed the text to state that there are 29 letters without a disclaimer in the parentheses; I'm not sure when it was changed back. The Real Academia Española is the recognized governing body for the Spanish language and specifically states the following: El abecedario español está hoy formado por las veintinueve letras siguientes: a, b, c, ch, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, ll, m, n, ñ, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, which translates basically into The Spanish alphabet is formed today by the following 29 letters:... Because the words that use "w" are accepted in the Spanish language, so is the letter "w" now as well. Here is the exact link (in Spanish): http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=abecedarioKman543210 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the "flowers". I'm just "sick" of those wrong edits and sought a comment on the talk page could make is easier when reverting to the facts since I'm sure it'll be never settled for good. Now you/I or anybody else can just reverse with a simple "see talk" in the edit summary. --Floridianed (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the 26 basic letters including "w" —as well as ch, ll, ñ, and rr— are now recognized by Spain's language academy as letters, for a total of 30.
For purposes of collation, however, the academy does not treat rr as a separate letter. That is, ch follows cz in the dictionary, ll follows lz, and ñ follows "nz"; but rr comes between rqu and rs.Pine (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As of now the "Writing System" section says that there are 29 letters in the Spanish alphabet, but lists only 28. The letter 'ch' is missing. Either it should be added to the list or explained why it is not part of the list "of 29 letters". I do not know the language but the number of letters listed should be same as the number of total letters mentioned. ... Raghuveer 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs)
IP reverted/letter re-added. The source says that there are 29 letters with "ch" in there. I've heard rumors suggesting removal along with other letters but have never heard of it officially being removed from the alphabet. Elockid(Talk·Contribs)14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(Excuse my English!) From 1994, the Real Academia de la Lengua quit as a letters the "CH" and the "LL". The "RR" never was considered as a letter. The "W" and the "K" were spaniard letters, but used to write foreign words (f.e. it were prefered "quilo" to "kilo", and you can write "güisqui" for "whisky"). And, of course, the "Ñ" is a letter.
From the Real Academia de la Lengua website:
El abecedario y los dígrafos ch, ll y rr
El abecedario español está hoy formado por las veintinueve letras siguientes: a, b, c, ch, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, ll, m, n, ñ, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z.
NOTE: The spanish alphabeth has recently removed digraphs by, like ch and ll, and ñ is considered a n with tilde, so it should be a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.206.96 (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Si bien las grafías ch y ll son en propiedad dígrafos —signos ortográficos compuestos de dos letras—, vienen considerándose convencionalmente letras del abecedario español por el hecho de representar, cada una de ellas, un solo sonido. La rr también es un dígrafo, pero, a diferencia de la ch y la ll, no se ha considerado nunca una de las letras del abecedario porque el sonido que representa es el mismo que el que le corresponde a la r en posición inicial de palabra o precedida de las consonantes n, l o s.
La variante española del alfabeto latino antes expuesta fue la utilizada por la Academia desde 1803 (cuarta edición del Diccionario académico) en la confección de todas sus listas alfabéticas. Pero en el X Congreso de la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, celebrado en 1994, se acordó adoptar el orden alfabético latino universal, en el que la ch y la ll no se consideran letras independientes. En consecuencia, las palabras que comienzan por estas dos letras, o que las contienen, pasan a alfabetizarse en los lugares que les corresponden dentro de la c y de la l, respectivamente. Esta reforma afecta únicamente al proceso de ordenación alfabética de las palabras, no a la composición del abecedario, del que los dígrafos ch y ll siguen formando parte.
The total number of Spanish speakers in the U.S. is overstated in the Spanish Language table. According to the footnotes, the figures are for Hispanics, not Spanish-speakers. Hispanic refers to family origin, not language. Many hispanics in the U.S. do NOT in fact speak Spanish. Spanish Linguist.com and many other sources show a smaller total - approximately 34 million, not the 50 million plus that is shown on the table.--Ksampow (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The picture in this section is confusing, as is the caption: "Spanish spoken in the United States. Blue indicates 50% of people speak Spanish, and grey indicates 0% speak Spanish." First of all, there are several shades of blue in the picture. Secondly, I highly doubt that 0% of several states speak Spanish. In fact, according to Spanish language in the United States, the lowest is Maine at 1%. Does anyone have, or can make, a better graphic? --Emika22 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The description of the image says, "Own, data from 2004 American Community Survey". There is an interactive census bureau produced map of "Percent of People 5 Years and Over Who Speak Spanish at Home: 2008" with geographic resolutions down to half a mile across available here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Requiring permission to add link: Instituto Cervantes
I looked at the article and don't see where it asserts that Spanish is the national language in Mexico, so i don't see a problem here. I looked at the List of countries where Spanish is an official language article, referenced from here, and see that it says that Mexico is a sovereign state where Spanish is a de facto official language, although it has not been legally granted an official status. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No /n/ in lexical stress?
I want to know why under lexical stress, it says stress is on the second-to-last syllable if the word ends in a vowel or /s/, but when I go to edit in /n/, it says "please do not add /n/ before discussing it on the talk page!" What reasons do we have for not putting /n/?
Jorge Morejón (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I also wonder about this. The rule says that, in the absence of a written accent mark, the stress is on the last syllable if and only if it doesn't end with n, s, or a vowel. (Leaving aside for the moment issues such such as words ending with "mente"). Can anyone please explain why the full rule is not written here? Also, it mystifies me why the article talks about "tendencies" and exceptions to them. There are clear rules determining where the stress lies in every word. There are actually no exceptions at all when all rules are applied.
You have to distinguish between the tendencies (what usually happens, without reference to the presence or absence of an accent mark) and what the rule is for pronunciation given the presence or absence of an accent mark. The article (until it was changed today) said with a citation that words ending with n more often than not have the stress on the last syllable (and thus implicitly, most words ending in n have an accent mark). I'll restore the original statement of tendencies (which should be left alone unless someone can show that it conflicts with the indicated source), and I'll also put in the rule about accent marks. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Numerical columns of geographic distribution table sort alphabetically
There are numbers in the table of geographic distribution.
When I want to sort the table e.g. by column "Spanish as a native language speakers", I have got it ordered by alphabet, which is needless, because there are numerical data in this column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruwolf (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Llamar lengua española, o idioma español, es un error. No existe ni lengua española, ni idioma español. Se dice lengua castellana o idioma castellano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.218.114 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Addition of an external link to Spanish Language: Practical Spanish
I would like to propose the addition of an external link to the website - "Practical Spanish" at http://www.learnpracticalspanishonline.com. The website teaches Latin American Spanish and includes beginner, intermediate and advanced sections with sound files in .mp3 format to help students with pronunciation. The grammar is presented in a clear and easy to read format along with plenty of examples. It also has readings in Spanish for students at all three levels, most with a complete translation in English. All the content is free and feedback is encouraged.
Firstly, in Spanish there are, in addition to the personal pronouns mentioned in the article, two more personal pronouns for the 2nd person: "usía" and "vuecencia". Their use is very limited and was always restricted, anyway, to addressing high military and judicial officials.
Secondly, Spanish has three genders, not three, but this third gender -the neuter- is morphologically almost identical to the masculine; the only two words where it is evident to be a distinct gender being the article "lo" and the personal pronoun "ello".
I agree about the third gender. However, I would argue that it is actually more prevalent than what is claimed. It is used in forming superlatives and general nouns out of adjectives. However, if I remember my lessons correctly (and I can't guarantee anything :) ) ello serves both, the masculine and neuter gender after certain prepositions.
As for the 2nd person pronouns, I'm curious as to how they are used. Should one conjugate the verb, of which they ar the subject, as a second person verb or third person verb (like usted)? Also, when should one use them? I'm personally curious, as my dictionary doesn't have a listing for them (not surprising, as it doesn't have a listing for anythign related to voseo). Jf1357 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"usía" and "vuecencia" (syncopes of "vuestra señoría" y "vuestra excelencia") are conjugated as "usted", using the third person verb, but they are only present in old literacy; they're not used in modern spanish anywhere. Neutral gender ("lo" and "ello") exist, but only for these two pronouns, who can only refer to linguistical sentences or concepts ("lo que te digo", "es por ello que...", "lo bello"...) and is used the masculin in its concordances. Observations are true, but I'm not sure adding them to the article would help .Chocheneguer (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I see. I thought that wikipedia was not fascist propaganda but this kind of articles make me to change my point of view. If you want a nazi encyclopaedia, it's up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.34.101 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I once knew a speaker of Mexican Spanish who became very offended when somebody said she was speaking Castilian. Her implication was that Castilian refers only to the version of Spanish that is spoken as the standard in Spain. My English dictionary agrees. Yet the lede sentence in the article says "Spanish or Castilian ... is a Romance language...", implying that they are synonyms. Should this be changed? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Castilian Spanish says: "In English Castilian Spanish usually refers to the variety of Peninsular Spanish spoken in north and central Spain or as the language standard for radio and TV speakers." This reinforces my point. I will delete "or Castilian" from the first sentence of the lede, unless someone raises objections here. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You should see the article Names given to the Spanish language. Castilian is both a dialectal variation of Spanish and an alternative name for the Spanish language as a whole. In that article, you'll see where, when and why one name is preferred over the other. For example, in Mexico the denomination "Spanish" for the language is preferred over the denoination "Castilian". In most of South America it is the opposite. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that article (which is correctly tagged as written like a personal reflection or essay), and it's wrong. It falls into the false cognate trap, by incorrectly implying that the English word "Spanish" is the same thing as the Spanish word "español" and that the English word "Castilian" is the same thing as the Spanish word "castellano". They are not, as can be seen by looking it up in a dictionary of the English language. The English word "Spanish" refers to the language that is spoken in parts of Spain, Latin America, and the US. It is correctly translated in Central America, Mexico, and the US as "español", and is correctly translated in much of South America as "castellano". The English word "Castilian" refers to the version of the language spoken in northern and central Spain and used as a broadcasting standard in Spain. It is correctly translated in Central America, Mexico, and the US as "castellano". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1) "Castilian language" (as opposed to "Castilian Spanish", which certainly refers to a regional dialect) is not a false cognate. It is widely used in English language scholarship to signify the Spanish language: (a) almost always when it is contrasted to other Spanish langauges (Catalan, Galician) (b) very often in historical works dealing with the early stages of modern Spanish, and (c) it is also accepted as a valid alternative name for the Spanish language nowadays. For the academic works using the term, see: Scholar Google Search "Castilian language"; for the actual current use of "Castilian" meaning "Spanish language", see examples: 1, 2, 3, 4; other definitions: 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Castilian", and others (1, 2). There are tons of examples. These are just a few, but i think it is enough to demonstrate that this use for the term "Castilian" is actually used, so it is not a false cognate.
2) In the whole Spanish speaking world both "Castellano" and "Español" are valid terms to designate the language. One or the other are often preferred in different contexts, countries and times; but both of them are valid in any place. It is a matter of custom and/or preference, not of different meanings here and there. Beacause the meaning of "Castellano" to designate a regional variant of Spanish is also valid -and actually used- all over the Spanish speaking world. Polysemy. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the citations. I looked through the first ten pages of Scholar Google Search Castilian language, but I couldn't find a single article that used it for anything outside Spain. Then I looked through your other citations, and still they all (with one exception) refer to the language spoken in Castile. The 1902 Britannica article says "the spirants c, z, which at present represent but one interdental sound (a lisped s, or a sound between s and Eng. th in thing)...." That seems to refer to the language of Castile. Your item [2] refers explicitly to the language of Castile. I could go on and on showing that your numerous examples refer to Castile. One of your references says "Sometimes it is used, not altogether accurately, to distinguish the Spanish of Spain from that of Latin America. And sometimes it is used simply as a synonym for Spanish, especially when referring to the "pure" Spanish promulgated by the Royal Spanish Academy...." The phrase "not altogether accurately", doesn't say what the inaccuracy is, and the reference to the "pure Spanish promulgated by the Royal Spanish Academy" again refers to the language of Castile. Your reference [3] is the only one backing up your assertion: it says "Castilian, which is spoken in all the national territory, Equatorial Guinea, the former Spanish territory of Sahara, Central and South America (except Brazil and the Guyanas) and parts of the Philippines, is the official and cultural language of some 350 millon people the world over." But this site belongs to the Real Academia Española, and probably is showing a little chauvinism or pride in the home language by saying that others speak it.
I find it striking that out of all the numerous citations you gave, only one Spain-based site says that the English term "Castilian" can be used for the variants of Spanish spoken outside of Spain. Or maybe I just missed some. Can you come up with something to reinforce your assertion? Thanks Duoduoduo (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1) You are right in one point. The only variant of Spanish called Castilian is that of Central and Central-northern Spain. But when we are talking of Castilian as a language it is the same Spanish language, in Spain or out of Spain. The fact that the expression "Castilian language" is mostly used when comparing Spanish (v.g. Castilian) with other Languages of Spain (Galician, Catalan, et al.) makes it mostly useful when dealing with Spain proper. But those sources are referring to the same language when talking about "Castilian", inside or outside Spain. That is: the Spanish language.
2) The mistake referred in one source is precisely when some people use "Castilian" to denote the Spanish spoken in Spain (vs. the Spanish spoken elsewhere). It is a mistake a) because there is not one single variant of Spanish in Spain (Castilian variant is just one of them, alongside Andalusian, etc.) and, this is the most important one b) because the language is the same. Across the Hispanosphere you only have some minor grammatical mutually understandable variations, some lexical variations and some pronounciation variations. But the language is always the same: Spanish/Castilian. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's what would settle it: Can you come up with a scholarly article that analyzes some feature (maybe grammar or pronunciation) of what is spoken in some region of Latin America (that is, specifically focusing outside of Spain), in which the linguist says he is analyzing the Castilian language as spoken there? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kibitzing from the sidelines here, and not directly in response, your comment above sent me googling. One of the hits i came up with is Eamonn Rodgers (2002), Encyclopedia of contemporary Spanish culture, Taylor & Francis US, p. 493, ISBN9780415263535, which speaks of two principal subvarieties of Castilian, one of which is more closely related than the other to Spanish as spoken in the Canaries and Latin America. Also, I ran across Edward Y. Odisho (2007), Linguistic tips for Latino learners and teachers of English, Gorgias Press LLC, p. 8, ISBN9781593336905, which says that though the Real Academia Española (RAE) has worked mightily since 1713 to standardize the Spanish language, Spain has a variety of dialects and several variants of Spanish in addition to other languages spoken side by side with Castilian Spanish, and that the linguistic diversity of Spanish in Latin America is even greater than in Spain. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to confuse Hispanics with Spanish speakers.
Not all Hispanics speak Spanish. The conclusion that all Hispanics speak Spanish is not supported by the citations.
1) For the United States the headding says "Spanish as NATIVE language speakers" and cites #23 the census "Hispanics older than 5 years old". This assumes that all Hispanics over five speak Spanish as their native languge. Not true. Most second or third generation Mexicans I know speak primarily English. According to the US census data 54% speak English "very well" and presumably better than Spanish. My experince is living in the Eastern suburbs of Los Angeles and I know that the situation is different in the city. But a LOT of Mexicans in Southern California live in the suburbs.
2) For the United States the headding says total number of Spanish speakers and cites #25 "There are 50,477,594 Hispanic people" in the US. And 100% of them speak Spanish? No, just as in the above about half of Hispanics speak English better than Spanish and know just enough Spanish to talk to their grandparents (in simple Spanish) or order a beer.
3) And finally, the number of "native" Castillian Spanish speakers in Spain is cited as 41 million out of a population of 47 million. But the Wikipedia articles on Catalan says that it has 11 million speakers and the Galican has over 3 million. Let me see, 41 million plus 11 million plus 3 million is a total of 55 million native speakers out of a population of 47 million. And does that inclue kids uner five? Is the article confusing native speakers with total speakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.181.95 (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
As a result of these errors the conclusion that "Spanish is the second most natively spoken language in the world" is false if the data in the citations were interpreted correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.239.133.132 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Add to that the fact that there are large numbers of Mexicans in the US (and probably people from other American countries) who are classified as "Hispanic" by the census but who are fluent in neither English nor Spanish. There are (depending on how you count them) hundreds of languages spoken in the Americas. One simply cannot make assumptions about language based on ethnicity or country or origin. It just doesn't work that way. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help!15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Why English dictionaries?
It may be true that Madrid Spanish is taken as the standard pronunciation for radio and television in Spain, but surely the four English-language dictionaries cited as authorities for that statement actually have nothing to say on the subject, do they? Can someone replace them with a genuine sociolinguistic source on the status of Madrid Spanish in the mass media? Kotabatubara (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Sortable" table not working
I am preparing to delete "sortable" from the specs of the "wikitable" under "Geographic distribution" because the sorting function is not working in a useful way, and it only serves to confuse. When you click the little up/down arrowhead at the top of a column, the numbers are sorted according to their first digit, then their second digit (or comma), etc. regardless of how many digits they have. For example, sorting by col. 2 "Population" in ascending order gives the following sequence:
• Guatemala 14,361,666
• Russia 140,702,094
• Guam 154,805
I've read the instructions for "Help:Sorting" but cannot make them work. The best solution would be for someone to make the table sortable according to actual numerical values, but if this cannot be done in the next few days, I will do the next-best thing and change "wikitable sortable" to "wikitable". Kotabatubara (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
New outline
I've reorganized the article under a new outline, which I think is more logical than the previous one. Previously, some material appeared under headings that were unrelated to their contents (e.g. the discussion of names of the language, under "Spain" in the section on "Geographic distribution"). The logic of the new order of major sections is to go from "universal" (all languages have grammar and phonology) to Spanish-specific (all languages have a past, but few have a history as thoroughly documented as that of Spanish; not all languages have a writing system, and fewer still have normative academies or official status for use by international organizations).
In this reorganization I have made an effort to limit myself to moving the sections or paragraphs, and to refrain from editing their contents. In some cases this has brought redundancies into juxtaposition, which will need revision later. Kotabatubara (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Stress placement and /-n/ vs. /-s/
I am preparing to revise the section on word stress, and I want to respect the request that was inserted in the article, namely "please do not add /n/ before discussing it in the talk page".
I appreciate the motivation to treat stress in terms of spoken sounds, rather than the traditional orthographic approach of textbooks. I also appreciate the difference between /-n/ and /-s/ with regard to stress. The statement that I'm preparing begins by citing the tendency for words with a final consonant to be stressed on the last syllable, then gives the exceptions as being (1) words that end in /-s/ and (2) verbs that end in /-n/ (I speculate that this is because these are both grammatical morphemes, but I think that explanation would be too technical for this general article). Nouns and adjectives ending in /-n/ -- like other words ending in a consonant -- tend to have final stress. Words of the margen, virgen, joven type are vastly outnumbered by those of the acción, bailarín, alemán type.
In the comparative table, appears the Nos-alteros vs Nos (Nos/Nosotros, Nos/Nosaltres, Noi/Noialtri), such construction is purely Latin: nos-alteros means "the group who are speaking, and not you who are listening" (exclusive we), nos means "all of we, both who are speaking and who are listening" (alter in Latin means "the other" of a group of only two elements). Time, confusion and simplification moved some languages to choose one form, and other languages the another, no more keeping the original sense.91.117.9.231 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism
Someone messed up the title of the section "Dialectal variation" to read "I hate wikipidia just kidding. its actually really helpful :) sorry i have to mess up this wiki article, but a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do XD", but it is only seen if you're not logged in.
I can't figure out how to change it back. Maybe someone can fix this.
Spanish is the third most spoken language by native speakers, after Chinese and English. I have no doubt about that. Please check the most updated statistics and change the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.197.175 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That is problematic, but the ethnologue is still the only reliable source for total numbers of speakers. If they haven't updated totals for every country that is a problem, but we can't just start adding and subtracting numbers from various sources. I'll remove the mention of "2009 data". I am going to revert your reinsertion of an insane amount of unreliable an unnecessary sources into the lead. And also the use of the ethnologue 14 which has been superceded. It goes without mention that the figures do not become more accurate by using a ten years old version of the ethnologue instead of the current one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Ethnologue re-edits always with almost the same figures, and their datas are the same as the edition before 1999. However they give as a data more current, a projection to 1999, like they made to the other most important languages. The case of Hindi is worse, in the 2009 edition uses a data from 1991 (only 181 million, and now is more than 300 million, in 2001 was 258 million according to the Indian census [5]), and the Indian population growth very quickly. Hispanic population also increase very quick and 358 million to 1999 is a data more realistic. If you read now the test in the article, everybody is going to think like you, "nowadays there are 328,5 million native Spanish speakers", and the other sources about 400 million speakers seems a contradiction. You have to specify the date when you are speaking about 328.5 million speakers, but there isn't a unic date. Here there is an older edition made in 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/19990429232804/www.sil.org/ethnologue/top100.html . Spanish has 332 million, however now is less, 328.5, It seems like the Spanish native speakers are decreasing and it's the opposite. In 1999 is 358 million, and in 2012 is higher. Someone gave us a more realistic data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers It was published the datas in 2007 by Nationalencyclopedin but the sources of the datas are older than 2007. --Migang2g (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why the Swedish encyclopedia or the Britannica should be considered more reliable than Ethnologue - we have no information about the sources of their estimates. I do take the point that Ethnologue is not high quality data - but I don't think there are much more reliable data handy anywhere else - and at least we can see for each country when the data is from which we can't for the encyclopedias. What we should do then I think, is to make the reader aware that these figures are estimates based on old data and has an uncertainty of at least 10-50 millions of people. For Hindi it is is easier to argue that the national data are more reliable than the Ethnologue - but for Spanish there is no unified census authority. The best thing to do would be to aggregate the official statistics of all Spanish speaking countries, but that is likely to be original research/synthesis since the census methods are probably not directly compatible.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
At List of languages by number of native speakers we now use the Swedish data, which is 387M for Spanish. I don't know whether or not they accounted for population growth so that the number would be approximately accurate for 2007; that is something to look into.
BTW, the national data for Hindi is probably less reliable than that of Ethnologue, because of the confusion over what "Hindi" means. The Eth. figure can at least be adjusted for population growth. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
358 Mill. is a Ethnologue data for 1999, and The Britannica encyclopedia uses this Ethnologue data. 328.5 is also a Ethnologue data, but mainly for 1995 or before. If you use 328.5, you have to specify the date like I did with 358 mill.. --Migang2g (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
v vs b
I do know that in one of the recent corrections of the royal academy of the language it was accepted to, in spoken spanish, replace v with b, they do reference different phonemes, I am not a linguist but there's a difference, v is a sound closer to f while b is a sound closer to p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.252.126 (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Minutes, seconds, etc.
I hope this is the right place to ask.
How do you specify times, in (hours,) minutes and seconds in Spanish, e.g. what would 10'30" be, Spanish style? I can't seem to find this information anywhere. Should it be in the main article? Or elsewhere? Or is it too specialised? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Too specialized IMO. As Wikipedia is not a manual, a better place is to ask would be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language or consult a dictionary/language guide. But FWIW, it depends on how you want to say it and it might vary by dialect:
10 minutes and 30 seconds would be diez minutos y treinta segundos
10:30 (10 hours and 30 minutes) can be diez y treinta minutos, simply diez treinta, or treinta minutos pasadas las diez (literally 30 minutes past 10)
You can specify it backwards, e.g. 10:35 would be once menos veinticinco (literally 11 minus 25) or veinticinco para las once (literally 25 minutes to 11).
You can also use media in place of 30 minutes, or cuarto for 15 minutes, e.g. 10:30 can be diez y media, 10:15 can be diez y cuarto.
When you want to specify the exact time, you can add en punto, e.g. diez y media en punto (literally 10:30 on the dot).
Western Sahara must be included in light blue in the Spanish language map, as it happens with the Philippines. Perhaps same thing must be done with the Sahrawi refugee camps in south-western Algeria. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Judeo-Spanish closer to Modern Spanish
I'm tempted to insert "to" in "closer to modern Spanish than [] any other language"; is that the meaning that was intended? Or is it "closer to modern Spanish than any other language is"? Kotabatubara (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I simply transferred some of the information that was already in other articles, e.g. Español_chileno#Voseo. As for sources, one just needs to watch Chilean TV shows or movies where it's not that hard to encounter the mentioned voseo verbal forms. I'm just not sure if they'd count as reliable sources. I particularly don't know of any link where such video files are permanently retrievable. Due to general copyright issues it is rather unlikely, but I'd be glad to receive any feedback. (-: Marxolang (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Please correct the map regarding voseo in Mexico. It is only used in the State of Chiapas but not in the Yucatan Peninsula. I was born and have lived most of my life in the Yucatán Peninsula and have never heard anyone using "vos" instead of "tú". That only happens with people from Chiapas. The map is wrong, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.169.4 (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has to follow the data published by the academies, and it's their data that has generated this image. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"Spanish speakers by country" table sort doesn't work properly
If you attempt to sort the table it sorts alphabetically instead of numerically meaning that in ascending order "10,267,764" comes before "101,455" which comes before "11,044" which is followed by "11,176,536". This is pretty damn broken. I would fix it but I'm not sure how. --StarkRG (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I made this same comment a year or two ago, and I was similarly unable to repair it, except to disable the "sortable" function. (That comment evidently has been removed as somehow outdated.) I also inserted the following "invisible" statement (now updated) in the text of the article, and it is still there (I space the characters so as to keep it from being invisible here): < ! - - If you can make the "sort" function work according to numerical values, then change "wikitable" back to "wikitable sortable". See Talk/"Spanish speakers by country" table sort doesn't work properly - - > Someone restored the word "sortable" in the code for the table without repairing the problem. Today I have once again deleted "sortable". I would like to see a sortable table if it can be made to work on numerical values, not "alphabetical" order. Kotabatubara (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I have found that a "wikitable sortable" with numeric contents is capable of sorting on the numerical basis, even with commas among the numerals. But I wonder if the problem in this case is caused by the footnotes in this table. Kotabatubara (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Try it now! For future reference: In the headers of those columns that need to be sorted numerically, I inserted data-sort-type="number" between the width expression and the title of the column. Kotabatubara (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Spanish as the 'Second most studied foreign language after English'
Some of your references [6] state the contrary : "Los más estudiados [languages] hoy, por este orden, son el inglés, el francés, el español y el alemán." And that is an extract of a report from the Cervantes Institute, which promotes Spanish internationally (as you may guess, it is not biased in favor of French language).
French keeps being the second most studied foreign language in the world nowadays (see [7] for instance). Please correct that factual error. Thank you.
French keeps being the second most studied foreign language in the world nowadays, French second language in international communication, after English, in the world! Counny (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2012 (CEST)
The cited references clearly support Spanish as being second most. If you wish to label it as third, then you would need to do more research with reliable references to support your claim. Otherwise, reverting is improper behavior. Whatever the reliable references support is what the article should reflect, not what you or I wish it to say. That's how we approach WP:NPOV. See also WP:V. - TaxmanTalk16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It is lived as a tragedy by many Frech people the fact that English surpassed French as the international language during the 20th century and now Spanish is doing the same. It is a shame, maybe. I myself speak French and find it a beautiful language. The US is a dramatic example of the switch from Studying French to Spanish in the latest decades. John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.244.73 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
People consult an encyclopedia for facts, not opinions. In the statement about the ranking of Spanish among world languages, the word "arguably" is a signal that the statement is not firmly supported by facts. Another signal is that 3 of the 4 cited sources are boosters with a vested interest in promoting Spanish:
A university language department promoting its product. No basis given for the statement. Delete.
Also a boosterist source, but at least it cites a speech by director of Instituto Cervantes.
Also a booster, but, even better, names the source person, "la directora del Instituto Cervantes, Carmen Caffarel".
A newspaper, the only ostensibly neutral source of the four, but no basis given for the statement.
If someone could at least find and cite the original report by Caffarel, that would be an improvement. An even greater improvement would be to cite an _disinterested_ source.
Please, either back the statement with unbiased data (and delete "arguably"), or delete the statement.
French is just too hard to learn by average people (I became furious with my father when he chose it instead of English as his third language – what kind of Brazilian doesn't speak Spanish in an at least intermediate level? LOL – in 2009, oh that old anti-American commie). West Iberian languages are just a bit more complicated than English. Furthermore, there is way more Spanish-speaking people in the world. Outside West Africa and a part of Western Europe, French won't help you in countries highly visible in the tourism industry and/or with big, emerging economies that also happen to be mostly populated by individuals not very good with English (everyday I remember unadvised English-speaking people raging in Rio de Janeiro because of our general lack of anything other than portunhol and bad pidgin... And we're in the top 5 of Latin American global cities as well #1 tourist destination).
Nowadays, French is useful if you intend to immigrate, more like an Italian that had success in expanding itself to a place other than Europe, apart of its large cultural heritage due to its dominance for such a long time... and just it. Not even for tourism it is necessary, as you can well survive two or three months in France with English plus portuñol.
Lguipontes, you are right. I live close to the Portuguese border in Spain and virtually all Portuguese people understand and speak Spanish relatively well. In fact, we all know that both languages are extremely similar (in fact I doubt that there are other two languages in the world that are more similar) but the sound system of Portuguese somehow makes it easier for Portuguese speaking people to understand Spanish than vice-versa. I often point out this interesting fact but a lot of ignorant people try often to downplay this fact. Why? Probably because Portuguese is Spoken by more than 200 million people and adding it up to Spanish results in a linguistic community of mor than 600 million speakers. You and millions of Portuguese speaking people know that this is a fact. I, who also speak Portuguese, know that this is a fact. Who else knows or ignores it? You can actually either learn Portuguese or Spanish and you will have access to a huge pan-Iberian linguistic community of more than 600 million people over huge territories, but it is true that it will be easier if you learn Portuguese first. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
in fact I doubt that there are other two languages in the world that are more similar Heh. How about Russian and Ukrainian, for instance? Or, to remain in the region, Portuguese and Asturian/Leonese (to say nothing of Portuguese and Galician, though this case is questionable as Galician is closer to Northern Portuguese than Standard Portuguese is). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Galician and Portuguese are virtually the same language. About Russian and Ukranian I do not know, but if they are so similar as Spanish and Portuguese or more, then they are very similar indeed! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
De jure means that it is has legal status as official language established in the constitution. However it is not the only official language as regional languages (basque, catalan, galician. asturian, leonese etc.) have coofficial status in their regions. Indeed in some regions administration is carried out mostly in regional languages. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Page protection
This article is rampantly under edit wars between figures of Spanish speakers around the world as well as an anonymous IP user who consistently adds Ceuta and Melilla as dependent territories when they are in fact, integral parts of Spain (much like Alaska and Hawaii are integral parts of the U.S. despite not being connected to the other 48 states). Their statuses as "autonomous cities" is merely a designation as Spain is a confederation of "autonomous regions". It will make just as much sense to add Madrid to the list since it's also designated as "autonomous". Also, Easter Island is a province and integral part of Chile. It was annexed by the country in the late 19th century. New Mexico should be the only "dependent territory" on the list that is an integral part of a nation since it uses Spanish at the government level (albeit de facto) while being part of a traditionally non-Spanish speaking country. Oh, and furthermore, the anonymous IP editor keeps adding Equatorial Guinea, Easter Island, and the Philippines to the REGIONS section. Really, geographical term fail much?
In short, this page should be protected to prevent any future changes that are not constructive and contain misleading information.
- Moalli (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
"Castilian"
I know this is just "maté" and "American" all over again and the record here speaks for itself, but I'll reïterate Reverver38 and Duoduoduo (Archive 10) and Jmabel (Archive 6) and SqueakBox (Archive 4) and Nohat (Archive 1)'s point: castellanois a synonym in Spanish of español, but "Castilian" is not a synonym in English of "Spanish". (Inter alia, note the dictionary cites already offered by Uaxuctum and the stack of references following the curtailed English definition heading the Castilian Spanish article.) It is quite possible that Iberian and South-American Anglophoneslike the term to translate their preferred castellano, but it remains non-standard among native speakers and its prominent, continuous, and unannotated use here violates ahost of Wikipolicies, most particularly WP:UNDUE.
It would be lovely if we could get a consensus to maintain
since it's what the lede should read here at the English Wikipedia.
Failing that, we really do need to maintain an explanatory footnote on that "Castilian" in the first line explaining that it is very much non-standard and what it actually means in English, with links to those articles. Since I'm just stopping by, it'd be nice if some of you residents could find the time to restore it (or some version of it) periodically when it's blanked. Thanks! — LlywelynII13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
New interesting book that maybe useful for artile.
Just how did a dialect spoken by a handful of shepherds in Northern Spain become the world’s second most spoken language, the official language of twenty-one countries on two continents, and the unofficial second language of the United States? Jean-Benoît Nadeau and Julie Barlow, the husband-and-wife team who chronicled the history of the French language in The Story of French, now look at the roots and spread of modern Spanish. Full of surprises and honed in Nadeau and Barlow’s trademark style, combining personal anecdote, reflections, and deep research, The Story of Spanish is the first full biography of a language that shaped the world we know, and the only global language with two names—Spanish and Castilian.
The story starts when the ancient Phoenicians set their sights on “The Land of the Rabbits,” Spain’s original name, which the Romans pronounced as Hispania. The Spanish language would pick up bits of Germanic culture, a lot of Arabic, and even some French on its way to taking modern form just as it was about to colonize a New World. Through characters like Queen Isabella, Christopher Columbus, Cervantes, and Goya, The Story of Spanish shows how Spain’s Golden Age, the Mexican Miracle, and the Latin American Boom helped shape the destiny of the language. Other, more somber episodes, also contributed, like the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of Spain’s Jews, the destruction of native cultures, the political instability in Latin America, and the dictatorship of Franco.
The Story of Spanish shows there is much more to Spanish than tacos, flamenco, and bullfighting. It explains how the United States developed its Hispanic personality from the time of the Spanish conquistadors to Latin American immigration and telenovelas. It also makes clear how fundamentally Spanish many American cultural artifacts and customs actually are, including the dollar sign, barbecues, ranching, and cowboy culture. The authors give us a passionate and intriguing chronicle of a vibrant language that thrived through conquests and setbacks to become the tongue of Pedro Almodóvar and Gabriel García Márquez, of tango and ballroom dancing, of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff in this book, but no way for the naive reader to distinguish the good stuff from the erroneous stuff. I read it to about p. 24 and gave up in disgust. For a nitpicking reader like me, there were too many wrong statements about phonetics, mixups of Spanish words with Latin ones, etc. Even the chemistry is sloppy: on page 12 it refers to the Río Tinto in Spain as having "a very high pH level". I got suspicious and looked up Río Tinto in Wikipedia. Sure enough, it remarks on the acidity (pH 2) of the river (high acidity = low pH). I wrote a letter to St. Martin's Press, urging them to edit more carefully. Any information you get from this book, I urge you to verify in sources written by experts, not by popularizers. Kotabatubara (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm deleting this book from "Further reading": Wikipedia should not recommend it. It is peppered with errors of fact. The authors say (on page 2) "neither of us speaks Spanish as a native language"—and it shows on every page. Here are a few samples:
"[The sound of Spanish o] is the same as the o in lock." (p. xi)
"After g, u is generally silent." (p. xi)
[The letter ñ] sounds like the English ng of sing." (p. xii)
"...like merced (market)." (p. xiii)
Puerco and toro appear among "words from Iberia's original civilizations" and which "come from pre-Roman languages." (p. 10) See porcus and taurus in any Latin dictionary.
Refers to "the Latin word cansar. (p. 11) (Cansar is Spanish, not Latin.)
Regarding Spanish cuyo, says "no other Romance language acquired it". (p. 12) (Cf. Port. cujo.)
Derives Sp. además "from the Latin demais." (p. 12) (Demais is Portuguese, not Latin.)
"Diphthongs have been preserved in modern Spanish and Portuguese but not as much in other Latin languages." (p. 22)
"In Hispania, speakers created ningulus by combining singulus (one) and nullus (none). This is why Spaniards say ninguno (nobody)." (p. 23)
"Due to sloppy pronunciation, [Latin-speaking] people got confused between the future and conditional tenses." (p. 24) ("Conditional" properly refers to a Spanish verb form, not a Latin one.)
Gives "aequus" as Latin word for 'horse'. (p. 24) Correct form is equus.
I see the content of this page is biased by native speakers of English or people under their influence.
As it's accurately written, the Castilian language originated in Castile, like English language originated in England.
The statement "Spanish language, also known as Castilian" should be written the opposite for the latter is the ORIGINAL name of the language and the former is an attempt to change it, mainly by aliens to the Spanish cultural realm.
As a matter of fact, in Spain, Castilian was the nationwide acknowledged name for the language until 1940's when Dictator Francisco Franco started a campaign to strip off non-Castilian communities their old internal autonomy rights and forced the "Spainization" of everything including the name of the Castilian language into "Spanish".
Since Latin American countries are not subjects of Spain, this change was not enforced there. Yet, people from countries close to the USA are indulgent with the American way of calling the language wrongly, as if these were a better reference than their own historical ties with the Castilian culture.
Still in Spain, “Spanish” is only used in an international context for it would be too awkward to put into question the Spanish condition of Galician, Basque and Catalonian.
Finally, please allow me to challenge you with the following question: Would you call English “British” because it’s the official language of Britain and everything related to it as a country is called that way? Of course, there is a British variety of English; just that “British” is an adjective here and not the name of the language.
___
The word "España" in Castilian (i.e. "Spain" in English) exists since the XI century replacing the Latin "Hispania"; however, its use was only geographical or historical for at that time the peninsula was divided in several kingdoms with different languages (such as Galician, Castilian, Basque, Catalonian and Arab) and there was not a unique political entity.
Therefore, it would have been wrong to call "Spanish" (as a noun) any of those languages, just "Spanish" (as an adjective) varieties of languages spoken beyond Spain such as Basque and Catalonian at the other side of the Pyrenees in France and Arab at the other side of the Gibraltar Strait in North Africa.
It's important to highlight the distinction between the Noun and Adjective connotations of the word "Spanish".
___
For a better understanding of the matter, it's necessary to take a glance at the history of Spain.
By the end of the VII century AD the whole territory of present day Spain and some others in present day France were under Visigoth dominion. In spite of this fact, and taking into account that 95% of the population was composed of Roman settlers and Latinized Celts and Iberians (they had conquered a Roman province), Visigoths set aside their Germanic language and adopted the Latin language and culture. Their linguistic significance was limited to the contribution with some few words.
Visigoths adopted the official Christian religion as well. As most of the converted Barbarians, Visigoths used to profess Aryanism and becoming Catholics allowed them to merge with the local peoples. It's important to recall that at that time the only Christian Church was already named "Catholic" and every other dissenting church was deemed a cult or sect.
In 711 the Arabs invaded Hispania (Spain was an inexistent word then) and destroyed the Visigoth kingdom that shrank to a stripe in the North (Cantabrian Mountains) and North East (Pyrenean Mountains).
The crash of the Visigoth Kingdom gave cause to the formation of independent fiefs that enlarged their territories mainly striking back the invaders but also among themselves sometimes.
Ever since the standard way to differentiate non-conquered Visigoths and Arabs was the religion, to wit, Christians and Moors, respectively.
The lack of unity of these Christian fiefs over centuries and different powers influence they were exposed to gave cause to the evolution of the Latin in different ways.
The raiding of Arabs in territories under Franks jurisdiction across the Pyrenees provoked their reaction and retaliatory expeditions that ended up in the formation of the Spanish March, a series of earldoms in the peninsular side of the Pyrenees all over former Visigoth territories from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean that were to be a fence against further Arab advances.
In the West of the Cantabria Mountains the first Christian Kingdom was founded; Asturias, that stretching southwards was called León (Lion) that grew eastwards. Portugal and Galicia in the West and Castile in the East detach from León in the XII century.
In the Spanish March, the western County of Navarre became a Kingdom while the eastern County of Barcelona grew stronger. In between, the Kingdom of Aragon rose.
Between Navarre and Castile, the Basques remained for long as an independent Duchy until conquered by Castile. The Basque language does not belong to the Indo European stem of languages and doesn’t derive from Latin.
Castile started as an earldom but soon later became an independent kingdom that merged with León and gain strength to lead the Reconquista. Portugal and Barcelona grew southwards but close to the coast, Atlantic and Mediterranean, respectively. Castile regained most of the peninsula and became the strongest Kingdom. Barcelona and the region of Catalonia fell under Aragon jurisdiction while Portugal joined Castile for some time.
At the end of the XV century the wedding of the Queen of Castile and the King of Aragon plus the conquest of the last Arab Kingdom of Granada produced the personal union of most of the former Hispania, only Navarre and Portugal kingdoms were still outside Castilian dominium.
Portugal remained independent until present day but the small Navarre was invaded and attached to the Castilian Crown.
It’s remarkable that Christopher Columbus took possession of discovered lands in America for Castile and Lion, not for Spain that didn’t exist as a Kingdom until 1806. The title "King of Spain" held by Philip II and successors was rather honorific than legal. Until then the hegemony of Castile was not total over Navarre and Aragon, they kept fair autonomy in internal affairs and it bothered Castilian unionists.
Besides Castilian, the other languages spoken in present day Spain are Galician in the North West of Castile, Basque in the North East of Castile and Catalonian in the East of Aragon, the half of this former kingdom composed of Catalonia on the Mediterranean coast.
Castilian is the native language for 74% of the Spain population and the official language of the country, yet not the only “Spanish” language.
Likewise, English is the native language of most of Britain population and the official language of Britain, yet it coexists with Welsh in the country of Wales, Gaelic in Scotland and Irish in Northern Ireland, and nobody has ever called English “British”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigodo Latino (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say (sorry on your behalf, Visigodo) that, in English, the case for "Castilian" as a synonym of "Spanish" is hopeless. This branch of Wikipedia is written in English, and it has to use English words as they are understood by English-speakers. Many contributors to this Talk page (see the archives cited by Llewelyn in the section "Castilian", above) have pointed out that the language that is the subject of this article is known by virtually all English-speakers as "Spanish", and that probably a majority of English-speakers have never even heard of "Castilian". No matter how freely Spanish-speakers interchange the words "español" and "castellano", the English-language Wikipedia cannot change the facts of English usage, and it should not try to do so. In fact, the article as it stands today is misleading in its first sentence when it says that Spanish is "also called Castilian." Don't take my word for it: investigate the usage in English by doing searches—for example with the Google Books Ngram Viewer, or Prof. Davies's Corpus of Contemporary American English, or on the Web at large. Search for phrases in which "Spanish" or "Castilian" is likely to be the name of a language (rather than the adjective of a nation state), such as "__ language", "written in __", "a __ accent", or "speaks __". Kotabatubara (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Rampant OR
The table in section 5.5 "Spanish speakers by country" contains some of the worst OR violations I've ever seen in an article of this kind. The table seems fine for the countries where Spanish is an official language, as everything is sourced. For most of the countries, the table is a complete mess. There are many countries for which no source at all is given for the number of supposed Spanish speakers. Even for the countries with some source or another, there is never any source for the percentage. Apparently someone took a population figure from one source, then a number for Spanish speakers from a different source and proceeded to calculate the percentage themselves, apparently not aware that that is a clear breach of OR. I have removed the countries for which not all data can be sourced. Massive OR violations of this kind is usually only found in minor articles that few people read, I was amazed to find them here.Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, WP:OR is "original research", in other words "facts" that are not properly sourced. It may be correct or it may be false, that doesn't really matter as Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH but about reliable sources WP:RS. For the countries I removed, some data were reliable, such as the population of each country (although that too was poorly sourced) but a large part of the data for each removed country was not sourced at all (in most of the cases) or not sourced using a reliable source (only a few cases).Jeppiz (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
A user recently added most of the OR data back into the article. Once again, I remind all users of WP:RS and WP:OR. It is not ok to take a population number from one source, combine it with a population or a percentage from another source and then present it as a fact. To be quite clear Everytime we calculate a number ourselves, we violate WP:OR. What is more, sourced should not be used to source other information than what they are intended for. If a source says how many people have studied Spanish in a country, then the source says only that. It does not say how many Spanish speakers there are in the country. Some people will have moved there, some will have left, some might have forgotten their Spanish, some might have learned it while living abroad etc. Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
User Migang2g insists on inserting his original research, violating Wikipedia's policies. Instead of removing, I have now tagged all information that is not properly sourced. If no source is given for them, those data should then be removed and reinserting them again would start to look like vandalism. Apart from tagging the data with no source at all, I've also removed sources that do not satisfy WP:RS and explained why for the first six countries in the list below.
A source of how many Hispanics there are in the US (second column) is not the same as a source of how many Spanish speakers there are.
The number of good speakers in the US (third column) seems to be Migang2g's own calculation. No source gives the number quoted in the column.
For Brazil, it seems we are again dealing with Migang2g's own calculations in the second and third column.
For France, Migang2g uses the Eurobarometer to give population figures. Obvious WP:OR as the Eurobarometer never gives any such figures, it only gives percentages.
Same thing for Italy, all the figures are calculated by Migang2g.
For Morocco, Migang2g again takes sources and make them say something else than they say, and he calcuates his own data again.
I see no point in going on for every country, as these six countries are indicative of the rest. Migang2g is consistently falsifying data, calculating his own figures and using sources to say something else than they say.Jeppiz (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If you delete every data I used, people will not be able to opine, then, although you think you have the truth, please don’t delete them again. It's neccesary people see the data to debate it, wikipedia is not a tyranny. You must see first my answers.
In USA, you deleted the source about the Spanish speakers as a first language. It’s a direct source from the US census Bureau. There isn’t any discussion here, but you deleted.
The next figure is 43.7 million people who speak Spanish very well. The source of Pewhispanic says that 82% of the Hispanic people in USA speak Spanish very well, and the Hispanic population is 53.3 million according to US census Bureau. If I can claim both data because both data have own their sources, mathematics says that 82% of 53.3 million = 43.7 million.
Readers can see that the figure is the combination of two sources, because is specified beside the figure with the reference number. But It isn't my own calculation. I didn’t make a statistic study to calculate the population of USA or the percentage of the population who speak Spanish very well.
Finally I used 7.8 million Spanish students. The students are frecuently used to talk about the speakers of a language. Arab for example is studied in the schools. Practically don't have a first language speakers. About English speakers, this wikipededia says that there are 1,500 million speakers, because there are 750 million speakers as a foreign language. It's a source from the British Council. In the Encyclopedia Britannica you can find similar figure. Of course It's included English students. Anyway I gave sources that talks about 50 million speakers. Instituto Cervantes (page 6) says that there are 37 million speakers as first language and 15 million speak Spanish with limited knowledge.
About European Union countries I used a direct source. It’s not the combination of two sources. The eurobarometer give us the population older than 15 years old of each country (page TS2), and the percentage of the population of these countries who speak Spanish enough to be able a conversation (Page T64). For example for France, eurobarometer says that 14% of 47,756,439 can keep a Spanish conversation. It’s the same to say that 6,685,901 can keep a conversation. You have to check also the pages T40, T46 and T74.
About Brazil, I used a direct source from Instituto Cervantes (page 6). This source says that there are 12 million speakers with limited knowledges. Its not my calculation.
About Morocco, I used a direct source, however the source says that there are between 4 and 7 million speakers, and I used 5.5 to have a concret figure. Maybe this figure could change it for a concreter data.
You also deleted the Hispanic immigrants in the European Union. Why? In the study Demografía de la Lengua española (page 37) says that there are 2,397,380 immigrants from Spain or Latin America who they are Spanish speakers as a first language. I did the same but specifying immigrants in each country, and the sum is less than 2.4 million.
At least, data from Eurobarometer or the direct sources can not be delete. This is the reason I inserted my original research. You delete data indiscriminately.--Migang2g (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that Jeppy is coming down a little too hard with the OR rhetoric since (as long as both sets of numbers are solid and comparable) there is no actual harm in using arithmetic (WP:IGNORE). There is no actual damage, e.g., in taking the numbers from one Chinese census, placing them next to the numbers from the last one, and then displaying the change. The harm comes from other factors such as bad sources or sources covering non-comparable topics. It's that conflation that is actually (misleading and bad) OR. For example, if the Chinese census suddenly showed Chongqing tripling in size over a span of 5 years, it might be necessary to find out whether the definition of "Chongqing" changed and explain that.
But your numbers are just such bad OR and he's quite right to remove them from a prominent page until you've justified them. You need to use comparable mastery and not native speakers for one country; anyone-able-to-hold-a-conversation in another; presumably Spanish-speaking immigrants for a third; and anyone of self-proclaimed "Hispanic" heritage at the time of a decennial census in a fourth. Comparing those numbers is not actually helpful and (if it's the best we can do) the column should simply be removed from the chart. — LlywelynII22:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Eurobarometer 2012 data figures are correct
I can understand the data were removed from the summary table. Those were totally correct but I used two sources to create an original result, but eurobarometer data is a direct source and It was removed again. In this study we can find the population older than 15 of each country, and the percentage who speak spanish with different levels. It is an Eurostat extimation through a survey made every 5 years (Eurobarometer 2001, 2006, 2012). Then, the percentages are from something. The percentages are about the population older than 15 presented in the page TS2 as It is explained. It's an extimation, with a margin error as every stadistic study, but It's a study to be used or to keep into account. It isn't raw data, because the result of population who speak Spanish is equal to the percentage of the population older than 15. Mathematics says it. This is the reason Eurobarometer present us always the population data older than 15. Eurobarometer presented us percentages instead of figures, because there are many data tables and It is more summarized to present us only percentages.
Both I and several others have tried to explain this to you many times already. The figures you use are not found in the study, you calculated them using data from the study. That is original research. If you understand it but ignore it, it's disruptive. If you don't understand it despite many users clearly explaining in detail that we do not calculate numbers ourselves, there's not much to do about it. Then you'll just have to accept it then despite not understanding it. It's becoming rather tiresome to explain the same simple point to you over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but I think that I have the truth. It's tiresome for me too. Do you want I insert only the percetage? But it's neccessary to say that It is a percentage of something, a percentage of the population older than 15 in 2012 as the Eurobarometer present us. For example for UK, the pecentage is 6% of 51,848,010. Both figures are in the Eurobarometer data. If I insert 6% of 51,848,010 you have not arguments to deny it. This is the reason I insist 6% of 51,848,010 is the same as to say 3,110,880, although 1000 people tell me the opposite.
On the other hand, I even give you a source where this calculation (as you say) is made. The main source I based the table: Demografía de la lengua española (page 37, second paragraph). We can read that according to the Eurobarometer 2006 survey, almost 19 million people can speak Spanish, at least with limited knowledge, in the EU excluded Spain. It's the same as to sum all the figures of all countries except Spain, as you can check here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Hablantes_de_espa%C3%B1ol_en_la_U.E._seg%C3%BAn_el_Eurobar%C3%B3metro_(2006) . At the end of the page is the result, almost 19 million people as I inserted in the table but specifying by country. Note: The "Demografía de la lengua española" study finally complement the eurobarometer data with another data sources, presenting us a total figure of 18 million + 3,385,000 of Spanish students that later sum, but I prefered to use only the direct source of the eurobarometer. Migang2g (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Migang, the figures that you are deriving by means of the percentages are resulting in what is known as false precision. A statistician knows that the expression "6%" could stand for any value from 5.5000% to 6.4999%. Fractions of a percentage point are rounded off—up when half or more, down when less than half. If the UK population is 51,848,010, then any number from 2,851,641 (5.5%) to 3,370,069 (6.4999%) could be expressed as "6%" of the population. To say that the number is "3,110,880" gives the false impression that an exact number is known, when all we really know is that the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million. To me, the issue is not the "original research" of your calculations, but rather the statistical misrepresentation that they constitute. I have no doubt that your figures are arithmetically correct, but they are statistically misleading, as I have explained above. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Mixing up first- an second-language use would be highly confusing. A possible alternative could be a new map just for second-language use. --Jotamar (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Growing importance of Spanish as a foreign language. Possible information to add.
Spanish is growing exponentially as a foreign language. It has become mandatory to offer it in Brazilian schools, it is the most studied foreign language in the US. It is widely studied in France (two foreign languages are mandatory in the French education system) and it is growing a lot in other European countries and elsewhere. In the UK the very British Council has published a report about the importance of foreign languages, putting Spanish at the top and urging the Government to promote the learning of the "right" languages from a strategic point of view. It is also interesting that the British Council ranks Spanish as the largest language for native speakers in the world, after Mandarin Chinese. Here is the report, just published: http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/publications/languages-future
As a native (born and raised) of the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula, I was amazed at finding my home region in blue in the "voseo" map, as I have never heard any native Yucatecan use it under any circumstance. "Voseo" in confined to the State of Chiapas in Mexico. That is one of the defining characteristics of the "Chiapanecan accent". Apart from that, Yucatecan Spanish has little in common with the Central American varieties. It is closer to Central Mexican, but it has phonological characteristics that set it apart from it (due to the Yucatecan Mayan substratum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.162.43 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Philippines?
There is a group of people who are trying to inflate the number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines. If the reference used is so recent, that does not hold water to me. According to the Spaniards who were in the Philippines during the Spanish era, there were very few Filipinos who spoke Spanish during the Spanish times. I'm wondering why nobody has ever mentioned that. There are too many of those books. I am citing in here some of the books. Please note the year of publication.
Filipinas por España: Narración episódica de la rebelión en el archipiélago filipino, Volume 2 By Emilio Reverter Delmas, Printed Centro editorial de A. Martín, 1897 - Philippines
Page 445 The natives have no knowledge of our Spanish language. It's almost the same as it was during Legazpi's time. They barely understand us and we do not understand the natives, not little, not much. The leyes de Indias (Laws on Education) that has been much talked about has never been complied with and they are dead letters. The same as other laws on the teaching of the Spanish language.
El gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas: planteado por el Español ...By Camilo Millan y Vellanue =MANILA Imp de J Lafont Real Manila 2 dup - 1897
pAGE 36 - Just drop by unexpectedly in a school in any town to be convinced that the gap reigns such that very few students understand or can get by with Spanish. Very few students write fairly. Students only know their Cathecisms in their own local language. This will sound sad but it is very true that 9/10 of the children of each town has not set foot not even once in the assigned school where he should have been going
Filipinas y sus habitantesMain Author: González y Martín, R. Published: Béjar, Estab. tip. de la viuda de Aguilar, 1896. Page 98 in spite of the four long centuries that Spain has owned and dominated the Philippines, the elegant and rich Spanish language is barely known and spoken. In the Philippines 8/10 or 9/10 of the natives have no knowledge of Spanish. Without changing the current circumstances in the Archipelago, it will be difficult if not impossible for natives to accept the mother tongue of the country.
Please note that I have no hatred for Spaniards but why inflate the numbers? I took 12 units of Spanish in the Philippines. I stayed in several boarding houses in the Philippines as a college student, i.e., many languages spoken under one roof (Visayan, Pampangan, Bicolano, Ilocano,language in Mindanao, almost all languages in the Philippines), but I know that Spanish as a language stayed inside the classroom, that was it. I tried watching Spanish movies on television when I first got here (USA), could not understand it. How it happened that there are more Spanish speakers now than ever, beats me.IsaLang (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
What is this thing about the Philippines? I've been watching this article for several years, and it never ceases going back and forth between Philippines and no Philippines. Isn't there a way to document once and for all whether there is or is not a significant Spanish-as-a-first-language community in the Philippines in 2014? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Ethnologue there were 2,660 Spanish speakers in the 1990 census, in Manila and in the chavacano speaking areas. Chavacano is a Spanish based creole/mixed language and it has 1,2 million speakers. According to Ethnologue its vocabulary is mostly Spanish and its grammar mostly Tagalog.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been searching myself for information about what remains today of the Spanish-speaking community in the Philippines, with no result. The community did certainly exist at least in Manila, but the most likely fact is that it consisted of elderly people and that it has already disappeared; however I'm not sure. As for Chavacano, it can't be counted as if it were Spanish, it's a distinctly different language. --Jotamar (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be surprising if a community of almost 3000 people dissappeared in the course of only 25 years. No, Chavacano speakers of course cannot be counted as Spanish, but its prevalence shows that Spanish heritage (and linguistic influence) is still vigorous in some areas of the Philippines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. 2,660 is not one fourth of one percent, nor a fortieth of one percent, but rather one 376th of 1% (0.00266%) of the total population.Kotabatubara (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Map showing use of "Spanish" and "Castilian" shows the Philippines incorrectly
In the Philippines the Spanish language is very rarely referred to as "Español" (or "Espanyol" in local orthography). That word is used more with national connotations (i.e. "a person/thing from [the Kingdom of] Spain"), rather than ethnic or linguistic. Similar to English "Spaniard" and "Spanish" when used as an adjective.
I see recent edits (19:34, 20 December 2014; 19:12, 16 December 2014; and 09:46, 27 November 2014) based on the question of whether /b, d, g/ are realized as fricatives or as approximants, and I suspect it is not all one or all the other. Is there room for both possibilities in this article? Martínez Celdrán famously presented a spectrogram of "abogado" with no visible air friction. Does this mean all half-billion Spanish-speakers outside of the laboratory never pronounce them as fricatives? Navarro Tomás heard fricatives, and Macpherson refers to "audible friction". Did this feature disappear overnight for all speakers? How can the (probable) mixture of realizations be presented to the casual encyclopedia-reader without overwhelming him/her with technicality? Kotabatubara (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The concept of approximant sound was introduced by Peter Ladefoged, if I remember correctly. It's impossible, therefore, that Navarro Tomás used the term in his time. I don't know the Macpherson you mention, sorry. All the literature about Spanish phonology that I've browsed, not just Martínez Celdrán, states that /b d g/ in intervocalic position are approximants in Spanish, except maybe for a few minority dialects. --Jotamar (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to WP. Ok, if you prefer to write fricative or approximant instead of just approximant, I won't change it, even though I think that they can be fricatives only in emphatic contexts. --Jotamar (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
population
Edit-war over population. We use the same ref for major languages to avoid cherry-picking sources. Also, the Instituto Cervantes grossly overestimates the number of native speakers by denying the existence of native populations. Mexico, e.g., is claimed to be 98% natively Spanish speaking, yet it's also 18% Indian, and "Indian" is defined by native language. (If you're 100% native by blood, but speak Spanish at home, you're "mestizo".) Similarly for Guat, Peru, Bolivia, etc. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually think this estimate is kind of reasonable, for the countries you mention. In Mexico 6% speak indigenous languages, but of those only a very small portion are monolingual speakers of indigenous languages (less than 1% of the population). So if we allow that bilinguals are counted as "native" speakers of Spanish the estimate is about right. I dont see a good argument for why we would assume that people have only one "native language". You have yourself quarreled over the problematic status of the Ethnologues estimate, this one at least is comparing data from the same time period.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
For a quick plausibility check, I added up the population of the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America as given in the Wikipedia article on Latin America (376.5 million). I think it is reasonable to assume that there are certainly no more than 10 million persons who do not speak Spanish as their native language. This leaves us with some 366 million speakers in Latin America. Now add more than 45 million speakers in Spain and more than 35 million in the USA, and the result is not far from the 470 million estimate. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by Native language. There are certainly more than 10 million who speak indigenous languages as one of their native languages (about 40 million indigenous people were reported in 1993, but without defining how many of those speak indigenous languages, AILLA gives a figure of about 15 million speakers of indigenous languages for all of LAtin America). I wish there were reliable data about monolingual speakers if indigenous languages, but in most countries there isnt. In Mexico there is, but I would expect a much lower percentage of indigenous monolinguals in Mexico than in Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
We're not talking monolinguals in NA langs (the figs in the new ref are for mother tongue; fluent non-native speakers are counted separately), and we're not following Ethnologue. It might be different if we dab'd the figure "native and natively bilingual", but as it is that would be OR. Look at the figures: Mexico, only 1.74% native + immigrants; Peru and Guat, only 13%; Bolivia, only 12%; Para, only 30%; and even Equatorial Guinea is 9.5%! Those are not credible figures. In Equatorial Guinea, for ex., only 10 to 15% speak and write it "adequately", due to its use in schools (Gloria Nistal Rosique: El caso del español en Guinea Ecuatorial), so we certainly cannot have 90% with Spanish as their "mother tongue". Perhaps the new ref is a propaganda piece. Regardless, the old ref treats all languages the same, which is why we decided to follow it rather than cherry-picking sources for most major languages. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think bilingual indigenous people are generally counted as native Spanish speakers, and while that is not always correct I think it is probably preferable to the opposite choice (i.e. counting them as L2 speakers by default). I dont know the EG context, but for Mexico I think it is a reasonable estimate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If they have two mother tongues, I would agree. Do they? The failure of the new ref for Eq. Guinea, which is an easy case, suggests it is not reliable. Per the source I ref'd above, el español hablado por la mayoría de la población no es una lengua materna, sino una segunda lengua. I never seen a claim that there are many native speakers, let alone 90%. And if the ref cannot get the easy stuff right, how can we depend on it for the difficult stuff? — kwami (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Figures from the Cervantes Institute are completely correct
Figures from the Cervantes Institute are completely correct, the number of native speakers of the Spanish language for the year 2014 are 470 million people, it is convenient to update that information. --Spawn3000 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you come to that conclusion? A quick check reveals the figures are largely bullshit, as noted above. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How would I know that? It seems to me that at least those of Equatorial Guinea are clearly wrong, for Mexico it is arguably a reasonable estimate but only if indigenous bilinguals are all counted as Native spanish speakers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
But you are not expert in the Spanish language, you should allow wise people to create this kind of studies about the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That is correct. The problem here is that the Cervantes institute's claims are contradicted by wise people whose expertise are in regions that are outside their immediate region of expertise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I defend to the Cervantes institute because the institute is respected around the world and in addition the organization publishes excellent information about the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth I think we should probably include the institutes report and its figures in the body of the article as one of the estimates of the total population, but probably not in the info box which would give it undue authorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
It is unfair that you allow the reference of a Swedish encyclopedia which has less authority in the study of the Spanish language in the info box, instead the Cervantes institute is a competent authority in the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"Världens 100 största språk 2010". Nationalencyklopedin. 2010. Retrieved 12 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)(in Swedish) . A Swedish encyclopedia is not the most reliable source in the study of the Spanish language and the Swedish encyclopedia is not the highest authority in the study of the Spanish language. --Spawn3000 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I dont think it makes sense to prefer the Swedish encyclopedia over the Cervantes institute. I think we either ought to give the population as a range with sources for the hihest and lowest estimates, or not have a population figure in the info box. Unless we can find a source that is clearly more authoritative than the cervantes institute regarding Spanish.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Institutions such as the Real Academia, Instituto Cervantes and others in the same vein are ideologically slanted. They will try to inflate the number of Spanish speakers as much as they can. --Jotamar (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Quotation marks
Could we have a section on quotation marks, please? There's nothing at the moment. The section on Guillemet says that in Spanish they're "uncommon in daily usage, but commonly used in publishing", and that's all.
I dont think an entire section on a minor detail of punctuation is warranted per WP:UNDUE. I think that a mos a sentence with a link to the article on variation in the use of quotation marke is sufficient.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·18:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Capitalisation
I'm no expert on linguistics here, but as far as I know, names of languages in English are always capitalised. So, in the intro, shouldn't *español* be capitalised? Or is it a translation and not in English? – SarahTehCat (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right about language names in English, always with an uppercase letter; but "español", as you say, is not in English, and the custom in Spanish is not to spell them with a capital letter. It is correct with lowercase "e". Thanks for your comment. Kotabatubara (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Spanish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
There has recently been a lot of put-and-take of long "sample texts" (Bible, Cortázar). These are not necessary in this (already excessively long) article, and I will delete the latest one. Spanish is not an unheard-of language: there are already perhaps billions of words of Spanish texts easily available elsewhere on the Internet. I overlooked these additions of nearly 5 and 7 kbytes when they first appeared (2016 Jan. 1 & 4), perhaps because my Watchlist shows only the most recent edit of an article, so if a large edit is soon followed by a small one, only the small one appears on the Watchlist. There's a lesson in this, at least for me: The Watchlist alone is not sufficient to keep a good watch on an article. We need to occasionally scan the History page for large puts and takes (the "+" numbers are in green and the "-" numbers are in red), and even occasionally reread the article itself. Please help me to protect the article from this bulky baggage if it reappears. Kotabatubara (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Spanish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Spanish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
Alaska has about 2.9% of Spanish speakers so should not be colored in the map. Someone please check the US states and redo them.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed the map to a similar one, not only because of Alaska, but specially because of Falkland Islands, that is an English Speaking British territory, and the claims on Alaska, not internationally recognized.--LuizdlTalk21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Marginal role" section on infobox
While this is slightly better than having unknown IP users consistently insist that Spanish is 'commonly used' in the Philippines when it's virtually extinct, and where Arabic is much more commonly used in Western Sahara, this section seems redundant and non-standard. No other languages have this section and historic usage in countries/territories is mentioned in the body and intro of their respective languages and should be also employed here. For example, Russian was historically influential and spoken by a large minority in Estonia and Latvia, but the language is no longer used in official functions despite the large Russian minority and their exclusion from the infobox on the Russian language article reflects this.
This may confuse readers into thinking that "marginal" still means that the language may still play an important role in a country's society itself and not through borrowed words, creoles, etc. It would make just as much sense to place Japan, Vietnam, and Korea under "Marginal role" with the Chinese language. The list of countries where Spanish is an official language already does a good job of explaining the status of Spanish in the Philippines and it's better to exclude it and this section from the infobox to maintain consistency along other language articles. - Moalli (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree, the proponents of Philippines and Western Sahara as Spanish-speaking should bring their case here instead of continuing an edit war, and if the edit war continues then protection may be considered: Noyster (talk),09:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Update, the adding of the 'Marginal role' section has opened up IP users to abuse their criteria of Spanish-speaking places once again (Antarctica, really?). Therefore, it is best that this section be deleted in line with other language infoboxes. Information pertaining to the role of Spanish in the marginal role countries should be added to the body/intro, although it is already pretty thorough with the case of the Philippines. - Moalli (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, someone who doesn't understand the word marginal could think it means important, really? And it can be proved that the language is indeed official in both countries anyway. The non-standard bit is unimportant, after all there are no more than 4 or 5 languages in the world with a degree of internationalization comparable to Spanish, that is, 4 or 5 languages which could need a similar entry (and they might easily add such an entry in the future). --Jotamar (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
About the edit war: it's user:Moalli who is breaking WP etiquette by unilaterally deleting something with no more backing than his/her opinion. And how often has he/she bothered to amend the editions of IP's, as I've done so many times? It's very comfortable to pontificate about how things should be done, and then let another stupid take the trouble to do it. --Jotamar (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I note that the "marginal role" section has reappeared in the infobox. This notion of a "marginal official language" seems bizarre, but I suppose it's an issue of only "marginal" importance while there are so many worse problems to fix on Wikipedia: Noyster (talk),23:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 17 external links on Spanish language. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Spanish language. 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.
We need to Talk (rather than Wikipedia:Edit warring) about "sample texts" in this article. Let me begin with a personal note: I am an enthusiastic "fan" of Old Spanish, and I've studied it thoroughly. That's why I'm glad that this encyclopedia includes articles on Old Spanish and History of the Spanish language. I appreciate the importance of the Cantar de Mio Cid in the history of Spanish language and literature, and that's why I'm glad that this encyclopedia includes an article on the Cantar de Mio Cid. Ideally these articles can relieve some of the pressure in the present oversized article on Spanish language. What do I mean by "oversized"? Wikipedia:Article size gives guidelines for length of articles. I quote: "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." And "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries..." The present article Spanish language has now exceeded 175 kB in length, over three times the recommended maximum. Fortunately much of the excessive detail in this article need not be "moved", as it already exists in other articles like those I've cited above. All we would need to do is delete the material that is duplicated here and provide links to those other articles where greater detail is appropriate. Am I wrong in thinking that the typical consulter of an encyclopedia is looking for an introduction to a topic, not trying to become an expert on it? Kotabatubara (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, lengthy sample texts are not desirable in the present article. I see the text from Cantar de Mio Cid is still duplicated in Old Spanish and Cantar de Mio Cid. It could be retained in the latter with a link from the former. The text just added to the present article, from Libro de Alexandre, could perhaps be transferred to the article on that document. If someone is keen to contribute further samples of Spanish as at different periods, they could possibly be added to Wikisource with transwiki links in relevant Wikipedia articles. But we don't need bloat in this general article on Spanish language. Where subtopics of this have their own article, this one needs only to summarise: Noyster (talk),21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am absolutely in favor of trimming long articles and avoiding redundancy in WP. Just keep in mind that new editors typically perceive pages like this one as important and the other pages you mention as unimportant, and of course they want their contributions to be in the important pages, so in the end there is a cycle of trimming-inflating-trimming-... that never ends. Best regards. --Jotamar (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spanish language. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Spanish language. 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.
I've reverted again the editions by an IP in the section Grammar for the following reasons:
As I said before we don't need an exhaustive list here, there's the main page for that.
The IP editions gave a crammed, difficult to read text.
The IP editor takes an approach of everything before my editions was wrong, instead of trying to work from the existing text, happily bulldozing a number of previous editions that tried to improve the readability and accuracy of the section. There is also the possibility that the IP's monolithic edition is copied from some other place, as typical in IP editors.
I'm not denying that the IP editions can contain some interesting info, but it should be added item by item, not wholesale. I'll try to do that later, when I have heard the other editors take on this. --Jotamar (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the IP's version is a clear improvement and should be left in place unless specific evidence can be given that it is plagiarism, or otherwise incorrect. The grammar section will eventually have to be a lot longer, giving a complete summary of the language's grammar - but it should also be supported by reliable sources. But since the information added by the IP doesn't seem incorrect and there is a general lack of sourcing in the article, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable reason to revert.·maunus · snunɐɯ·18:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I was waiting for the IP editor to respond. Meanwhile, I've added a few changes from his or her editions that I find useful. --Jotamar (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
75% from Latin?
"Around 75% of modern Spanish is derived from Latin." I suppose this means 75% of Spanish vocabulary. I think linguists agree that this kind of statement has very little meaning unless we know whether it refers to the vocabulary of a dictionary or to the vocabulary of running text (in a variety of styles, hopefully). Can anyone trace this statement to a source, where perhaps the question can be resolved? Kotabatubara (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Infobox
Could I ask all users to please look at infoboxes for other languages, as the whole point of infoboxes are that they conform to each other. We usually list the countries in which the language is the official language, or is a recognised minority language. We do not have sections on "marginal use" for other major languages. So if anyone feels we should have it here, despite not having it for Portuguese, Italian, German, French, etc., then the onus is on the user to gain a consensus for having a different infobox format here. In the absence of any such discussion, we follow the format of infoboxes for other major languages. Jeppiz (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
What "discrimination are you talking about? Treating Spanish like any other language is equal treatment, the complete opposite of discrimination. The infobox on English, like all other infoboxes, list where English is official. Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The picture of English, French or other languages, considers all the places where these languages are found, including minorities, however, in the case of the Spanish language does not include places where Spanish is not even majority: Virgin island 50% Gibraltar 90%, Andorra 90%, Belize: more than 50% of the Spanish-speaking population, their learning is compulsory, Aruba: more than 80% of the Spanish-speaking population... NETHERLANDS ANTILLES: more than 30% speak Spanish, United States: spoken by 18% of the population and is co-official in New Mexico and has official status in Texa and California, speaks in the southern states of the country, the Philippines has a special status, in Trinidad and Tobago learning is mandatory, Brazil has a significant minority of Spanish speakers, France too , Morocco also, In the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Spanish is Co-official and is taught in schools .... Look this referens:
"Español lengua viva, informe 2017, Instituto Cervantes"
Definitely, the Spanish language is completely marginalized, while for the other languages all places are considered, INCLUDING WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS MINORITY, in the case of Spain the same criterion is not contemplated. This is marginalizing a language.Asepsia (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Asepsia , with all due respect, if you do not speak English and you don't understand English, then I kindly recommend you use Wikipedia in Spanish. Your comments here are barely understandable, and it seems you do not understand what I write. Once more: for all comparable languages, the infobox only lists place where they have official status. So while you claim some imagined discrimination, and accuse good faith editors of vandalism for not agreeing with you, the opposite is the case. You want to give Spanish a privileged status. Unlike infoboxes for other languages, you want the infobox for Spanish to vastly overestimate its importance. That is notWP:NPOV. I would kindly encourage you to read these comments carefully and make sure you understand them, before continuing to edit war to give Spanish a status different from other languages. If you keep up this behavior, then I'm afraid a report will soon follow. Jeppiz (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment To use simple English: Infoboxes for languages list Places where languages have official status. Infoboxes for languages do not list all places somebody speak the languages. Infoboxes for English, French, German, Italian etc. list where the languages are official languages. The infobox for Spanish should do the same. The infobox should list where Spanish is official. Not more and not less. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
User:JeppizIt is not the same in the information tables of other languages and I am not a nationalist. It does not have the same criteria with the other languages, in the information box and in the maps they include places where languages are minorities, however they do not do the same with Spanish, which has erased places like the Sahrawi Republic that is also official, again, I invite you to look at these pages:
Do not have the places where Frances is a minority? Look:
Asepsia, this is getting repetitive. Either you don't understand, or you refuse to understand. Regardless, it's starting to get disruptive. For the final time: YES, WE LIST COUNTRIES WHERE LANGUAGES ARE OFFICIAL. I've said this five times now, and you just keep whining that Spanish is unfairly treated. It's not. For my part, the discussion here is over, as it's going in circles with no new arguments. If it needs to continue, it will be at WP:ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
JeppizYour way of discussing things is; do not change anything, do not touch anything, because then we report you for vandalism. When he was the one who opened here, the thread of discussion to propose changing the list of countries, sorry, but can not threaten me with the change of vandalism when the changes I am proposing are more than justified, the son reasonable, there are references and I had discussed in several discussion previously. I think the only one who has bad faith is you, who thinks he owns the wikipedia, you do not use the discussion forums and delete the users who contribute, without taking the trouble to inform you.
But do not you see that the information tables of other languages include the countries where the language is a minority?
Asepsia (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the include countries where the language is official even if spoken by a minority. It does not include random countries, such as your downright ridiculous inclusion of Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. as countries where Spanish is spoken. I don't know if you do not understand English, or if you understand but pretend not to, but it's disruptive in either case. Your actions on Wikipedia only makes articles worse, hence I've asked ANI that you be blocked for the good of the project. Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hawaii in Map
Hawaii is marked in dark blue on the map at the top of the page. This seems inappropriate, as Spanish is neither an official nor widely-spoken language in the state. CharlesMartel (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)CharlesMartel
And how does one go about that? I am rather new here. I also am a bit thrown off by the map, specifically the marking of a big chunk of Antarctica as "Spanish speaking". Even if Spanish speaking countries have spome legitimate claim on 1/6th of the territory in Anarctica, it's hard to say that it's "Spanish language territory" if there is no-one there to speak it. Anyone who does go there, say a hardy scientist of researcher, has just as much chance of speaking any other language, unless they select them accroding to their language skills. Gives me an impression, rightly or wrongly, that it was made by some person with the intent to make Spanish appear more important than it is (and it is quite important enough already without artificial inflation) by covering as much of the map as possible with blue. If I am wrong and they've in fact designated a large part of Anarctica as "officially Spanish speaking", in spite of there being no people around to actually speak it...well, that's the sort of thing that keeps authors in business pointing out the foibles and ironies that abound in "offical business" within the human race. -- 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idumea47b (talk • contribs)
I agree with most of what you say, however I still think that, if you want to sort things out, the best way to do it is to get familiarized with wp:Commons. --Jotamar (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a clear POV problem because it accepts the Argentine and Chilean claims to Antarctica in preference to the British one. It is also clearly inaccuate in claiming Hawaii as a Spanish-speaking territory. Also, it uses four different colours without telling us what they mean.
I don't think going to Commons is the best solution though. If you tell Commons editors that the map is wrong and POV, they will point out that they don't care. We need to pick a more neutral and more accurate map, with a clear key, and if there is none available then we need to create it. Kahastoktalk15:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the wording, it deals with historical change and there's no need to mention all the modern phonetic variants. --Jotamar (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What is a non-Hispanic Spanish speaker?
The new paragraph under "Number of speakers" refers to a projected number of Spanish speakers in the U.S. by 2020. It says "Most of these Spanish speakers will be Hispanic". The implication of the figures given is that there will be 1.5 million to 2 million Spanish speakers who are not Hispanic. This seems to call for some explanation. Kotabatubara (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Country where the spanish lenaguage is the first language foreing...
Aruba, Trinidad and Tobago, Brasil the spanish is the first language foreing, have more speakers, Brasil is the second country wiht more studienst of spanish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asepsia (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Asepsia: Content in Wikipedia must be backed by sources, and there were three main question in your edit.
Western Sahara: I've wathed this page and I've seen several editors removing or adding this one, then it must have a source this claim.
Brazil: You said in summary that Brazil and other coutries that Spanish is the first foreign language, but at least here in Brazil, the first foreign language is English, it is the only language that must be compulsorily taught at elementary and high school. I've looked if you started this thread in any other talk page, and at User talk:Noyster#Spanish Language you said there's a law that makes Spanish mandatory in all Brazilian schools, it was the first thing Michel Temer revoked after impeachment of Dilma Rousseff with the pt:Reforma do ensino médio no Brasil em 2016. Even it Spanish was also obligated, it wouldn't make it a "commonly used", English is taught everywhere in the world, but English is not "commonly used" in every country in the world, and claims like "one of countries wiht more students of Spanish", even if it is true, what is the percentage? Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world, it is the same as to say "China is country with more students of English".
Guam: It is an American territory, and there is more than one century that that Spanish lost this territory. Your claim may be true, but you need a source for it.--LuizdlTalk19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The reference you've pointed, that has the same data as "Español una lengua viva 2017", fits well for "Marginal role", where you've placed now, but it couldn't fit for "Commonly used" because the source itself says it's 0.3 percent of total population. Thanks for referencing and happy editing.--LuizdlTalk22:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Luizdl: It seems that there are users who are willing to update Wikipedia and who think that Wikipedia is theirs, who pass the updates, @Jotamar:, that the references are not well introduced, which is nothing more than to do, but of course I do not dedicate myself to destroy the work of the other volunteers, also when it is a topic that is open here in the discussion and that we have discussed at length in the language page English (in English) if you think that the rules can be improved, but do not erase the work of the Other, Jotamar, I already told you 5 times or more. Jotamar, change the chip, instead of destroying, build a better wikipedia, each one is good at one thing or another, do not destroy what others contribute. Asepsia (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Asepsia: Comment on content, not on other editors. Your claims that @Jotamar: is vandalizing are completely unfounded. You may disagree or agree with Jotamar's edit as you see fit, but they are certainly not vandalism. Moreover, an article in the Spanish version of BBC mentioning countries in which some people speak Spanish is not really a great source for claiming a lot of countries as Spanish speaking. Please gain consensus before restoring these controversial edits. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Sorry? Jotamar was not attacked, on the contrary, I had repeated him more than five times that he used this forum to resolve the disagreements. But what can not is that users use it to reach a consensus and then another person decides to erase everything because it considers that the rules are not good, that all it needs is to improve the article but that it does not destroy the work of Other volunteers Besides Jotamar and six other editors came to the consensus after a long discussion of those other countries, which may reach the end of the discussion of the Spanish Language, as well as other languages, please check carefully, in addition to the maps all show up to minorities.
Although in my opinion this source is good for reference countries with "marginal role", it does not mean other editors can't question if the source is reliable. Also, it is being discussed the existence of such section below, and indeed any other language has such section.--LuizdlTalk00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This line seems very doubtful to me. I'm quite certain Latin did not evolve directly from Greek except in fanciful tales of Troy.
"is derived from Latin and, through Latin, Ancient Greek" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.237.254 (talk • contribs)
I see that "Megaman en m" has deleted an archaic form from the table under "Relation to other languages"—an action that I fully agree with. Megaman, I urge you to delete the rest of the archaic forms from that table. An encyclopedia article is (or should be) just an introduction to the topic, not a treatise. Kotabatubara (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Orden de los países.
Hola hispanohablantes o castellano hablantes y editores de Wikipedia. A mis ojos el concepto " posee xxx cantidad de hablantes en España y el resto del mundo" suena un poco colonialista. Sugiero se cambie dando prioridad a México o el país donde más personas utilicen el idioma, de manera de visualizar también el español "oculto" en Estados Unidos. Sé que es un tema muy sensible pero son tiempos delicados para ponernos atrás de banderas. Un abrazo desde Uruguay de una obrera del microscopio y perdón los cientos de errores ortográficos y gramaticales. Belvedererafaella (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Inaccurate maps
Some maps have been proposed here, showing where Spanish is spoken. We do need such a map, but need an accurate one. For example, both maps claimed Spanish to be spoken in France. No doubt there are French people who know some Spanish, as well as Spaniards living in France, but that is true for almost every major language in every country. Spanish has no official status in France, nor it is spoken by any considerable minority (in contrast to the US, where it of course very much is spoken by large groups). Furthermore, please note that the US is one country. Either we divide all countries into states/provinces, or none, but we don't claim the US is completely unlike all others. Jeppiz (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A complete and accurate map is certainly needed, but perhaps too lofty a goal for a single contributor. What about an incomplete, but accurate, map with some countries colored or marked in such a way that indicates the status still needs to be determined (from a sourced Wikipedia perspective)? That way, the map can be improved over time by potentially multiple people helping, rather than needing to be figured out all at once by a single person. 2600:8800:7900:1A9:28A9:9076:F857:6B87 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There are some recommendations from Real Academia de la Lengua Española to prevent misunderstanding between "español" and "castellano". Rubriguez (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
La Real Academia de la Lengua Española establece:
"El término español resulta más recomendable por carecer de ambigüedad, ya que se refiere de modo unívoco a la lengua que hablan hoy cerca de cuatrocientos millones de personas. Asimismo, es la denominación que se utiliza internacionalmente (Spanish, espagnol, Spanisch, spagnolo, etc.). Aun siendo también sinónimo de español, resulta preferible reservar el término castellano para referirse al dialecto románico nacido en el Reino de Castilla durante la Edad Media, o al dialecto del español que se habla actualmente en esta región".
Why are we discussing what the language is called in Spanish (español/castellano), here in the English-language version of Wikipedia? English-speaking readers call the language "Spanish". "Castilian"—for those who have heard of the term—refers to a dialect of Spanish spoken in Spain. No English-speaking reader thinks they speak "Castilian" in Argentina. "Names of the language" is a much-debated issue for Spanish-speakers, but is that controversy really worth so much verbiage in the English-language article? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is a need. According to the first sentence of the wiki page Spanish Language, both terms are treated as equal, leaving out tints between them. The official authority of Spanish Language has set some recommendations for the right use of them. There is no mention to that recommendations at the whole page. For that reason, I've tried to express the sense of those recommendations editing this wiki page. If you don't want to know them, i ask you apologizes for that. Rubriguez (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed multiple times on this page. I would recommend that anyone interested search the archives of this page (search boxes above) for instances of castilian, castellano, etc. Erictalk13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Improvement for Spanish language distribution map
There’s a Spanish language map on Commons that I believe would be better for this article (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detailed_SVG_map_of_the_Hispanophone_world.svg). It is a more detailed SVG file, it shows the areas where Spanish is co-official with indigenous languages, and it displays the status of the language in the United States and other regions more clearly and accurately. The displayed percentages of Spanish speakers in the current map, from my research, are wildly incorrect. (for instance, the figures in the US seem to refer to the those of Hispanic ancestry, not necessarily those who actually speak Spanish.)
If there are no objections within a few days, I'll go ahead and edit this article. Jpthefish (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The current doesn't seem to show the co-officiality of Spanish in Southern USA states. Plus, the map is deeply misleading as it shades nations where Spanish is spoken by 100% of the population in a different tone of blue because another language is co-oficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessnevada (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of the map, its caption includes the puzzling statement "Note: Western Sahara is colored for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, a partially recognized territory not shown on this map." How can an area that is "colored" in some way be "not shown" on the map? Kotabatubara (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The use of boldfacing in the conjugation tables for voseo in the Morphology section seems counterintuitive to me. Given that boldfacing is being used in that table to distinguish entries where the vos form differs from the tú form from entries where the vos form is the same, shouldn't the former be the ones that are bolded, not the latter as is the case now? Largoplazo (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone removing Western Sahara everyday
Spanish is a cooficial language in SADR and an importan minority language in the area since the last century. One user (Moalli) who supports only arabics language and Moroccan invasion of the area constantly remove the information of the official map. GeorgeOlnero (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Seems helpful enough.--Obsidi♠nSoul 21:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
_05.jpg)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Espa'ol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#Espa'ol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)