More healthy and standardized padanian language

I thought this was a thread about the extinct romance language spoken in modern ex-Yugoslavian territory...

You mean dalmatian (or dalmatic, depend of the suffix used in english)? Well, it would have made more sense than "reviving" an unexistant language, based on borders created on the second half of XX on pure electoral purporses.
 
You mean dalmatian? Well, it would have made more sense than "reviving" an unexistant language, based on borders created on the second half of XX on pure electoral purporses.

I wonder how Dalmatian then could be saved-kept alive longer, then... (I could make another thread...)
Was it directly related to Romanian, same branch of the Romance familly?
 
I wonder how Dalmatian then could be saved-kept alive longer, then... (I could make another thread...)
Was it directly related to Romanian, same branch of the Romance familly?

Apparently, it was more close from Italian, and less to gallo-italic dialects (the venetian dialect of Italian being the junction between the two languages) and far less than romanian group.
 
Totally ASB. Irremediably too.

Not only Tuscan is the standard italian, but venitian is maybe the northern dialect most close of Italian and Friulan-Romanish is another language. You don't have the slightest trace of a linguistic base for unifying this otherly than OTL Italian language.

Well, I agree with you about "Padanian" (unless it's taken to mean Piedmont, Lombardy, Liguria, and Emilia-Romagna), but Venetian could have functioned as a separate language from Italian - in fact, during the whole Republic of San Marino, Venetian was used as the official language. If there was a rival to Florence by way of Milan, then that could have functioned as the centre of another separate language, too - not "Padanian", but a Lombard language that could encompass a wide area. (Plus, Lombard is kinda-sorta transitional to the languages in France.)
 
Well, I agree with you about "Padanian" (unless it's taken to mean Piedmont, Lombardy, Liguria, and Emilia-Romagna)
The main problem is that Padanian don't have this meaning, even by twisting it in all the direction. Padania is litteraly "country of the Po river" and it's only a geographic expression (since the napoleonic times). And even in a "restricted".

Even the Emilian-Romagnol is an artificial union of two distincts dialects, not really closer than...let's say eastern lombard and emilian. It's just because Emilia and Romagna are united politically.

Furthermore the biggest problem with gallo-italic dialects is that, while they COULD have formed a language, they never united themselves and stand in a "grey zone" : not really dialects of italian, not part of a Gallo-Italic language, neither languages themselves. If they would have formed a language, the center of gravity would have never been the Po river, it's just too excentered.

, but Venetian could have functioned as a separate language from Italian - in fact, during the whole Republic of San Marino, Venetian was used as the official language.
Be careful here : it's not because you can have the formation of an Ansbau language, such as Catalan from Occitan or Dutch from Lower German that a Venitian language wouldn't be technically an italian dialect.
In fact, Venitian is the transitional dialect between dalmat and italian, and is really distinct from northern dialects by being far more close to standard Italian.

Now, if you wanted to talk about the formation of such Ansbau language, true. But it wouldn't be a "Padanian" language as you said. In fact, it would be even less pandan than anything else and could have probably formed the core of Italian language in the absence of tuscan supremacy (and could have opened an interesting door about dalmat language being more close to standard Italian, enforcing Italian irredentism)

(Plus, Lombard is kinda-sorta transitional to the languages in France.)

It's to be extremly relativised : Gallo-Roman languages (French, Occitan, Catalan or Rethics dialects) are really distincts from what you find in northern Italy. The Gallo-italic proximity is mainly morphologic, not really grammatical and/or lexical. Sure, it's more close from western romance language, as Italian is comparated to Romanian.

It's probably a mistake due to 1)Bad faith concerning the proximity of Gallo-Italic with Italo-Dalmatic 2)The "Gallo" part of "Gallo-Italic" 3)A geographical proximity.
 
The problem is that Venetian absorbed the features of Friulian and Lombard that is why it looked like a Gallo-Italic dialect even if it's supposed to be a Italo-Dalmatian dialect.
 
The problem is that Venetian absorbed the features of Friulian and Lombard that is why it looked like a Gallo-Italic dialect even if it's supposed to be a Italo-Dalmatian dialect.

This is not making any sense.

Friulan is a language, from Gallo-Roman subgroup (Retho-Roman group). I don't see how it's going to make Venetian dialect more Gallo-Italian.

And actually it's Venetian that influenced neighbooring Gallo-Italic dialects, not the reverse, explaining some superficial similarities with them and the relative easyness to impose standard italian to gallo-italic regions, as it was more or less historically prepared.

Finally, it's not supposed to be an Italian dialect (not Italo-Dalmatian, that is a group, as Northern Gallo-Roman, or Occitano-Roman), it is (even if it have several distinct differences that could have lead to an Ansbau language).
 
Just one point, the north italian languages are closer to french and spanish than modern italian. Modern italian's closest relative is romanian.

IMHO you are mistaken: there are more loan words from French, and from German.
However there are really no "north-Italian languages", but rather "north-Italian dialects", with the only exceptions being some Occitan penetrations in south-west piedmont and the group Ladin-Furlan in north-eastern Italy.
 
IMHO you are mistaken: there are more loan words from French, and from German.
However there are really no "north-Italian languages", but rather "north-Italian dialects", with the only exceptions being some Occitan penetrations in south-west piedmont and the group Ladin-Furlan in north-eastern Italy.

This is globally exact, though i'm wondering if the "Occitan penetrations" aren't more southern gallo-roman subtrates, before the withrdraw of this romance dialect during carolingian times, in Susa valley by exemple.

The Alps are a really hard thing to cross, except for some passes, and the occitan (or earlier southern gallo-roman) language in Italy have been both isolated and extremly tied to western side of Alps (maybe because of this isolation), and more encline to withdraw than actually progress.
 
This is globally exact, though i'm wondering if the "Occitan penetrations" aren't more southern gallo-roman subtrates, before the withrdraw of this romance dialect during carolingian times, in Susa valley by exemple.

The Alps are a really hard thing to cross, except for some passes, and the occitan (or earlier southern gallo-roman) language in Italy have been both isolated and extremly tied to western side of Alps (maybe because of this isolation), and more encline to withdraw than actually progress.
The Occitan Valleys are basically Italian Dauphine and Italian Nissa except for Saluzzo, both Italian parts of Dauphine and Nissa were claimed by De Gaulle in World War II..
 
The Occitan Valleys are basically Italian Dauphine and Italian Nissa except for Saluzzo, both Italian parts of Dauphine and Nissa were claimed by De Gaulle in World War II..

I was talking about Middle-Ages, early part, languages. Before the appearance of Old Occitan as a language. Considering how much the Old Occitan border was southern compared to the estimated border of southern gallo-roman., it's possible that the "occitan" traces in Gallo-Italic coulod be only gallo-roman substrates if the limit changed as well in Italy.

And...I don't what you're talking about Occitan valleys in Nica and Delfinat. Occitan Valleys are on the EASTERN side of the Alps, not WESTERN.
 
I was talking about Middle-Ages, early part, languages. Before the appearance of Old Occitan as a language. Considering how much the Old Occitan border was southern compared to the estimated border of southern gallo-roman., it's possible that the "occitan" traces in Gallo-Italic coulod be only gallo-roman substrates if the limit changed as well in Italy.

And...I don't what you're talking about Occitan valleys in Nica and Delfinat. Occitan Valleys are on the EASTERN side of the Alps, not WESTERN.
Yes, Southern Gallo-Romance changed it's borders but actually it collided with Italian creating the Gallo-Italic dialects..

Yes, there were parts of Delfinat in the east part of the Alps but these parts were given to the Duke of Savoy, the Easternmost part of Nica also stayed with Piedmont and became a part of Italy..
 
Yes, Southern Gallo-Romance changed it's borders but actually it collided with Italian creating the Gallo-Italic dialects..
Err...No.
As said, Gallo-Italic are not part of Gallo-Roman subgroup, so not created by colliding with souther Gallo-Roman : it's a dialect of Italo-Dalmatian subgroup, that happen to have more proximity with western romance (Iberian, Gallic subgroups). But the dialectal difference is attested since long, and it's not the bastard child of Italian and Gallo-Roman.

Again, don't be fooled by the "Gallo" part. The morphologic substrat is maybe due to an influence (not a colliding, from memory lingustical colliding happen when different dialects are randomly mixed while they were not really close, as in the "choc des patois" in Quebec), but not a parental one, geographic probably. And again, probably an early one, with the withdraw of southern gallo-romance dialect.

Yes, there were parts of Delfinat in the east part of the Alps but these parts were given to the Duke of Savoy, the Easternmost part of Nica also stayed with Piedmont and became a part of Italy..

Didn't this thread was about languages borders, and not political ones? I don't know what's your point here. Because these borders not really influenced liguistic limits.
 
Err...No.
As said, Gallo-Italic are not part of Gallo-Roman subgroup, so not created by colliding with souther Gallo-Roman : it's a dialect of Italo-Dalmatian subgroup, that happen to have more proximity with western romance (Iberian, Gallic subgroups). But the dialectal difference is attested since long, and it's not the bastard child of Italian and Gallo-Roman.

Again, don't be fooled by the "Gallo" part. The morphologic substrat is maybe due to an influence (not a colliding, from memory lingustical colliding happen when different dialects are randomly mixed while they were not really close, as in the "choc des patois" in Quebec), but not a parental one, geographic probably. And again, probably an early one, with the withdraw of southern gallo-romance dialect.
Here is the map of the languages in Italy during the medieval era

Most linguists right now actually classify the GalloItalian on the Gallo Romance languages rather than Italo-Dalmatian..
dialetti.gif
Notice that Piedmontese here is shown as a part of Lombard.

dialetti.gif
 
Here is the map of the languages in Italy during the medieval era, most linguists right now actually classify the GalloItalian on the Gallo Romance languages..

Notice that Piedmontese

This is not a linguistic map. Seriously, you're using Dante's classification of languages are a REAL one?
I mean, the point develloped here was the diversity of Italian language, as a whole and that lombardese and all are part of the same language.
If this map would ever "proof" something, it would be that northern italian was not at all different from southern one.

You should really find something more modern than medieval linguistic.

By exemple, a map like this would be more interesting, showing the development of languages during Middles-Ages and their situation evolving.
. It's not prooving anything by itself of course, but it have the merit to show a more evolutive feature.

The one you give us, while interesting regarding how Dante concieved cultural Italy, is not giving us actual knowledge about gallo-italic dialects, critically following modern standartds of linguistics. And even if it was, it would be a map of XII century, not showing anything about the formation of the linguistical groups (for romance dialects, from III century, for languages IX). Still, for an introduction to medieval linguistic, it's interesting : could i have the references to have this map?

For the belonging to the gallo-roman language, please, give your arguments. All the people that know, teachers by exemple, say the most problematic question is if it's belonging to Italo-Dalmatian as a dialectal group or as a linguistic one.

Peire Bec, by exemple, said it was a distinct linguistical group within the Italo-Dalmatia, with dalmat and Italian.
 
This is not a linguistic map. Seriously, you're using Dante's classification of languages are a REAL one?
I mean, the point develloped here was the diversity of Italian language, as a whole and that lombardese and all are part of the same language.
If this map would ever "proof" something, it would be that northern italian was not at all different from southern one.

You should really find something more modern than medieval linguistic.

By exemple, a map like this would be more interesting, showing the development of languages during Middles-Ages and their situation evolving.
. It's not prooving anything by itself of course, but it have the merit to show a more evolutive feature.

The one you give us, while interesting regarding how Dante concieved cultural Italy, is not giving us actual knowledge about gallo-italic dialects, critically following modern standartds of linguistics. And even if it was, it would be a map of XII century, not showing anything about the formation of the linguistical groups (for romance dialects, from III century, for languages IX). Still, for an introduction to medieval linguistic, it's interesting : could i have the references to have this map?

For the belonging to the gallo-roman language, please, give your arguments. All the people that know, teachers by exemple, say the most problematic question is if it's belonging to Italo-Dalmatian as a dialectal group or as a linguistic one.

Peire Bec, by exemple, said it was a distinct linguistical group within the Italo-Dalmatia, with dalmat and Italian.
Here is a page that link to a thesis that shows that Gallo Italian is not a part of Italo-Dalmatian but a part of Western Romance and connected to Rhaeto-Romance.
http://www.squidoo.com/linguistic-unity#module157223241
 
Here is a page that link to a thesis that shows that Gallo Italian is not a part of Italo-Dalmatian but a part of Western Romance and connected to Rhaeto-Romance.
http://www.squidoo.com/linguistic-unity#module157223241

It doesn't seems to be actually a convincing thesis (and didn't convinced lot of people, outside a guy in internet that say "i'm fond of Mr. Hull thesis" on his webpage. At this Mr. Hull is unfortunatly the only one to praise both a "padanian" language and saying it's not only connected, but totally the same between raeto-roman and gallo-italic.

Not only the raeto-roman group is clearly acknowledged to be independent from gallo-italic as much any other language, but the whole use of "padanian" language is hilariously wrong, as it its strangely connected to electoral borders choses by the Lega Nord.

Indeed, the venetian dialect is known to be totally distinct from gallo-italian, being the transition between italian and dalmatian.

Furthermore the use of "padanian", apparently it was used because he didn't have another word, and didn't wanted to use gallo-italic (admitting he wanted to show an unity between raeto-roman and gallo-italic group). Let's admit the use of "padanian" is an unfortunate choice, critically concerning the use of this word by the Lega Nord.

That George Hull want to show an unity, it's his right. But for now, his position concerning it is minoritary (i didn't saw any other name attached to this theory). For the majority, there's no nord-italian language (there's northern italian dialects though, separate from Italian) and even less an unity between Gallo-Italic, Venetian and Friulan-Ladino-Romanish.

What strikes me in his thesis, is the extensive use of morphology at the cost of grammatical and lexical base.

In fact, all the first half of his thesis is about morphology. If it's about showing the morphology was similar, everybody knew that.

Again, maybe you have your reasons to think it's a better scale to use mainly morphology for linguistics, but it's not the case for the majoritary. It's not because you're favouring Mr. Hull for some reasons that you can ignore the massive agreement on the absence of unity. Because, no, it's apparently limited to the thesis of George Hull and some italian linguists.

Furthermore if you actually read his thesis, a part showing the phonologic and morphologic similarities of northern Italy only, you'll see he's talking about a reconstructed padanian language. What he's proposing is an unified language, something NOT existing OTL, and he admit it. His main concern is to protect northern italian dialects, and for that he say "here's a proposition to speak padanian, instead of being divided".

Of course, as it's not paying attention to the grammatical and lexical differences, it's flawed from the beggining.

So to resume : nothing is said about unity or disunity of grammar and vocabulary (except by passing, and without a real concern), the "padanian" proposed her is admitted to be a reconstructon based on the dialects but never having an actual existence (a part Lega Nord linguists that extansivly use that for their purpose, everyone in north Italy talk or "Lombard", or "Piemontese", or "Venet", but no one say "i'm talking padanian".

So : you can't have a padanian language as described here as it never existed really, or at best otherly than "potential language".
 
Last edited:
Top