Portuguese spain instead of Castillian spain

[bastian]

*TTL Galician(-Portuguese) must be understood as an equivalente to modern day Portuguese with a very strong influence from the Galician dialectal group​

I doubt it. In my opinion, as we move towards the south, the language is modernized. Dialects of the north would be the "archaic"(I do not know how to call it) form of language and I do not think that they could have too much influence in that modern language(rather, I think it would be the opposite). However, I still think that the language would be called galician and the kingdom of Galicia, not Portugal nor portuguese as was the independence of Portugal which leads that you could call that "Galician-Portuguese" and then "Portuguese" and "Galician".Even it could not be compared with Valencia and Catalonia as Portugal was part of Galicia (otherwise never step). The fact that Garcia II called himself king of Galicia and Portugal(I am not sure of that) seems a mere formality.​

 

[hsthompson]

No. Castillian won because of pre-industial demographics. That made it the language of the court, not the other way aroud. In fact Galician (an early Portuguese) was the poets language in the Castillan court almost until the unification itself. Many nations had French as a court language for centuries, and yet they did not adopt french.

Portugal and Aragon were maritime, commercial kimdoms centered around its seaports (Lisbon, Porto, Barcelona, Valencia). Castille was made of huge river valleys than grew loads of grain and sheeps -and grain and woold were in fact two of pre-industrial Europe mayor industries. It did not have many mayor cities, but had dozens of small ones. Castille had the other four nations (Aragon, Portugal, Navarre and Granada) beat both by wealth and population -it may even beat all four of then together.

It wasnt until the industrial age when demographics changed in Europe, and wealth moved from wool and agriculture in the country to the industrialiced areas around the cities, and great industrial centers developed from minor towns (Manchester, Bilbao). But by then Spanish was the Castillian language, and Catalonian, Galician and Basque were on the wane (while Catalonian managed to survive with some health, until the advent of democracy in 1978, and the establishment of bilingual education on those regions than restored their ancestral tongues, Galician and Basque had turned into insolated rural languages than had probably a couple generations left)

Wheter Spain is ruled from Castille, Aragon or Portugal, a Castillenizacion in a couple centuries is almost unavoidable, unles you get a completely radical POD in, say, the War of the Spanish sucession or the Napoleonic wars. Until well into the 18th century, european nations did not have even the concept of an "official language", and all nations had quite a few regional tongues.

I have a few criticisms of your argument: it starts with Spain as ruled from Castile. Or from anywhere.

When Spain was a union of the crowns, rather than a centralized state, Castilianization was limited to the courts themselves and to the aspiring classes. Volume of speakers was relatively few in number.

It is the constitution of Spain as a single crown, with one set of laws and customs, where languages other than Castilian are, first proscribed, then actively prosecuted. Still, until universal primary education is made obligatory with the Moyano laws of 1857 (previous ordinances already set punishments for those using anything else than Castilian in schools) language change by the population of the periphery is still negligible.

The concept of an official language as a de facto institution -by banning the rest- is earlier than the late 18th century. The pioneers were in fact, Bourbon France and Spain. (I need to point out here that Philip the V Bourbon did not bring his court from France, it did come to a Castilian court which had rooted for him in the Succession Wars.)

The problem with adscribing the advance of Spanish to market forces and demographics is that it makes the expansion of Spanish look like a historical inevitability, when it ignores the most important factor: imposition from above is the way things have been done in Spain for a long time.

If we imagine *Spain as ruled by a Portuguese elite rather than a Castilian elite, imposing the language as part of a unified administration, Castilian would still be in the same general situation as a prosecuted language.

I'm not saying that the fact that Castile had and has more people and more money doesn't help. But it wouldn't help as much as you expect.

The Portuguese would walk around *Spain as if they owned the place, which they would, because their voice and vote would be worth more than a Castilian or a Catalan, telling them that speaking Portuguese is being cultured and not to speak the language of peasants, bogmen and mucketymucks. That's what happened in France historically, that's what happened in Spain. You do not speak proper language, you speak a "dialect", a "patois".

Rather, in a democratic *Spain as a crown union or as a democratic multinational state the more valid argument I see for *Castilian being the basis of a *Spanish language is not because of the amount of people that speak it, but because it occupies something close to the medial point of the Iberian dialect continuum. Once you get past the accent, Catalan (particularly Valencian dialect) and Portuguese are very understandable and rather easy to learn from Castilian.

With a broad standard for *Spanish, the resulting situation would nto exactly be bilingualism, as Portuguese and Catalan would be extremes of the same language. It would be richer, more dynamic and more varied than Spanish (and maybe it would be easier for *Spanish speakers to learn other Romance languages, being exposed to more variation in accents, speech and morphology)

 

[bastian]

Rather, in a democratic *Spain as a crown union or as a democratic multinational state the more valid argument I see for *Castilian being the basis of a *Spanish language is not because of the amount of people that speak it, but because it occupies something close to the medial point of the Iberian dialect continuum. Once you get past the accent, Catalan (particularly Valencian dialect) and Portuguese are very understandable and rather easy to learn from Castilian.

I agree with hardly all your post but...one question: what do you mean with "medial point of the Iberian dialect continuum"?

 

[Nasei]

When Spain was a union of the crowns, rather than a centralized state, Castilianization was limited to the courts themselves and to the aspiring classes. Volume of speakers was relatively few in number.

It is the constitution of Spain as a single crown, with one set of laws and customs, where languages other than Castilian are, first proscribed, then actively prosecuted. Still, until universal primary education is made obligatory with the Moyano laws of 1857 (previous ordinances already set punishments for those using anything else than Castilian in schools) language change by the population of the periphery is still negligible.

The concept of an official language as a de facto institution -by banning the rest- is earlier than the late 18th century. The pioneers were in fact, Bourbon France and Spain. (I need to point out here that Philip the V Bourbon did not bring his court from France, it did come to a Castilian court which had rooted for him in the Succession Wars.)

Afonso X of Castile, the Wise was the king that used Castilian as court language, but also had people of the three religions working in the translation of books in to Castilian, as consequence shaping it as it is today.
The Catholic Kings in 1486 did several things to Galiza like:
- the execution of many Galician nobles or exile to other parts of Castile;
-Castilian was imposed as the language of the church, justice and administration, as result the Galician was reduced as language of farmers and fishermen;
-they named a Gobernador-Capitán General to rule Galiza, with equal powers that later the Vice-Kings in the Americas will have;
-the damaged castles wore not to be restored.

 

[Nasei]

The fact that Garcia II called himself king of Galicia and Portugal(I am not sure of that) seems a mere formality. [/left]

Garcia was king of Galicia and Portugal, because he defeated the count Nuno II Mendes in 1071, ending the First County of Portugal and uniting the Galiza and Portugal in one kingdom.

 

[Rakhasa]

-Castilian was imposed as the language of the church, justice and administration, as result the Galician was reduced as language of farmers and fishermen;

Excuse me? THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH? That church than spent the next three centuries burning at the stake anyone who translated the bible into spanish? I won't comment on the rest, as the Catholic kings did spend quite a lot on effort into destroying the power of the nobles (Isabella was an usurper queen and she got the throne thanks to the noble's private armies; she certainly learnt her lesson)

I have come to truly despise the obsession on the periferic historical regions in Spain to twist and outright fake history so they can claim an unending sucession of tortures from the evol Castillians.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I agree with hardly all your post but...one question: what do you mean with "medial point of the Iberian dialect continuum"?

Romance languages varied (often almost imperceptibly) from village to village from the Atlantic ocean through France up into Belgium in one direction and down into the toe of Italy in the other, forming a language continuum.

In Iberia, Castillian is in the middle between Catalan and Portuguese. Of course, Castillian has its own oddities (e.g. 'f' turning into 'h') so it's not as simple as being in the middle, but for a Castillian speaker the process of understanding Portuguese/Catalan probably amounts to '1) undo Castillian specific changes 2) add Portuguese/Catalan specific changes', whereas Portuguese and Catalan may be more widely separated, linguistically. (Of course, orthographically they LOOK more similar, both using e.g. lh and nh instead of the Castillian ll and ñ).


Our modern (well and late mediaeval) concept of 'languages' existing, with regional 'variations', 'dialects', 'patois', 'peasant speech' doesn't really match the facts on the ground. Of course, after some hundreds of years of linguistic imperialism from the capitals, it now does rather more.

 

[hsthompson]

Excuse me? THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH? That church than spent the next three centuries burning at the stake anyone who translated the bible into spanish? I won't comment on the rest, as the Catholic kings did spend quite a lot on effort into destroying the power of the nobles (Isabella was an usurper queen and she got the throne thanks to the noble's private armies; she certainly learnt her lesson)

I have come to truly despise the obsession on the periferic historical regions in Spain to twist and outright fake history so they can claim an unending sucession of tortures from the evol Castillians.

The language of the Church for speaking to man, not to God. Sermons, confession, baptisms, names, weddings, deaths and the like. Which taking into account that they were the only recognized legal contracts in some matters, does constitute more imposition than is apparent at first sight.

On retrospect, I should have been more clear when I pictured the *Portuguese going around an authoritarian *Spain as if they owned the place... Not even then all *Portuguese(ATL) or Castilians(OTL) did or would do this in either Spain. Only those that have no manners and identify with the elite. Like "American Tourister" types. "Speak to me in Christian, you uncultured oaf!"

I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone by mistake, and if so I unreservedly apologize for the omission.

 

[Nasei]

Excuse me? THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH? That church than spent the next three centuries burning at the stake anyone who translated the bible into spanish?

I have come to truly despise the obsession on the periferic historical regions in Spain to twist and outright fake history so they can claim an unending sucession of tortures from the evol Castillians.

Sorry, my mistake.
English is my third language and I do think mainly in Portuguese.

Latin was the church language, I want to say that the priests had to talk in Castilian.

I was simply try to point that there wore centralization efforts by Castile even in the Middle Ages.
I do not think that Castilians are or wore evil, just humans that did what they thought was best to them.
If I offend you and or any other person on this forum, I'm sorry.