This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
1 Incorrection | 2 Loss of vosotros/vuestro in parts of South America? | 3 IPA and SAMPA usage and inconsistencies | 4 History | 5 Major changes in the 19th century? | 6 Semivowel or not? | 7 También and compadre have /n/ (arch)phoneme | 8 Inverted question marks | 9 Spanish syntax | 10 Castilian or Spanish? The situation in Spain | 11 Separate Grammar Page | 12 one of the oldest languages in the world | 13 Sound bites | 14 Oh dear | 15 Help with article | 16 MadriD | 17 Misspellings | 18 Adjectives | 19 Second person, third person, questions | 20 Castellano and Español | 21 digraphs as letters | 22 Countries that say castellano | 23 POV addition by anon | 24 Brazil | 25 Spanish word list | 26 Languages of... | 27 Northern Morocco
Where do the new figures for number of speakers come from? I don't mind people updating stuff without references per se, but this kind of thing should be substantiated with sources...and there is no way anyone can authoritatively update such a thing (population figures) without sources...especially not when dealing with millions of speakers. TomerTALK 02:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
All of Latin America is a Spanish region??? No!
In the info box section the "region" of the Spanish language says the language is spoken in "Spain, almost all of Latin America," - that is total nonsense. Brazil is a part of Latin America, in fact it is the largest(geographically) and most populous country in the region with more than a third of its population and Spanish is NOT widely spoken in Brazil. I changed the statement to "Central and South America, Caribbean islands,"
--212.82.166.162 09:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
Maybe it should say: "almos all countries in Latin America". --Marianocecowski 11:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is still too much considering the size and population of Brazil. The problem is "almost all countries or all in Latin America" is quite misleading because then it sounds as if the region was overwhelmingly Spanish speaking and, distorts the fact that Brazil is home to more than a third of all Latin Americans and about half of South America's land area. Haiti like Brazil is also Latin America and non-Spanish speaking but unlike Brazil, Haiti is a small country with a small population. If Haiti were the only non-Spanish speaking state in the region I would say "almost all countries" is okay. Brazil is only one country but home to huge percent of the region's people. Any statement with all or almost all is misleading in this subject because it basically classifies Latin America as a overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking region, which it isn't. --212.82.166.162 15:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
That's why in Spanish there is a distinction between Hispanoamérica (all Spanish speaking countries in the continent), Iberoamérica (ditto plus Brazil) and Latinoamérica (to make room for Haiti and French Guiana]. Ejrrjs | What? 19:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a list of non-hispanic speakers(--Jondel 05:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)):
latin america comprises more than 30 countries, and according to that list, 3 don't speak in spanish (yes, 3. English and Dutch are not romance languages, thus not part of latin america). Saying 'most countries' seems appropriate to me. Or would you say that half asia speaks russian because russia is such a huge country? Not stating "almost all countries in Latin America" is more misleading that not saying it, as you would think that latin america has a large number of spoken languages, which is not the case, IMHO. SpiceMan 13:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, 90% of the countries and 66% of the people within the region speak Spanish (I agree with Spiceman's stats), SqueakBox 14:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
second most popular language?
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This has been a subject of many edits lately, and maybe it would be wiser to discuss it here.
The different views seam to be the following (please add any needed):
Spoken in:
A - By number of native speakers (Mexico, Colombia, Spain, Argentina, USA, and dozens of...)
B - By "importance" of the country's language influence (Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, USA, and dozens of...)
C - By minimalistic geographical coverage (Spain, Latin America, USA, and dozens of...)
D - By relevance to English speakers (this is, after all, en:WP): (Spain, Mexico, Argentina, etc., see distribution)
More neutral. Compare "United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and others" on English language. –Hajor 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Hajor. Many nations have rich literature, i.e Chile and Pablo Neruda. It's POV to decide which is more imporant to the language. -JCarriker 16:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Although I'd have no problem if "Option B" were to be applied, I am changing my vote to "Option A" after reading and agreeing with the short but straight statement made by JCarriker in his vote. Al-Andalus 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Spain first (obviously), then the next three by number of speakers. — Chameleon 12:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Spain first, then the next four by number of speakers. Include USA as non-trivial trivia. Ejrrjs | What? 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Option D:
The distribution is discussed at length in the article itself, and if people really want a detailed list, that's where they're going to go anyways. The language table is meant to be a quick guide, not an article of its own accord. TomerTALK 07:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
The push to include the USA in the list seems to me to be POV-pushing. While it's true that there are a significant number of hispanoparlantes in the EEUU, its influence pales in comparison to English, which is actually a historically important language in Honduras, Nicaragua and Panamá (eventhough none of these countries are even mentioned at English_language#Geographic_distribution, and is culturally influential (moreso than Spanish in the US) throughout hispanoamerica, yet you'll notice that there is no big push to include any of those countries in the list of English speaking countries. That said, importance-wise, Spanish is clearly far more important in Venezuela or even Paraguay than in the US. The argument might be made that "well, English-speakers don't feel as oppressed" or whatever, but this is WP, not a clearinghouse for gripes. TomerTALK 07:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Tomer: I agree with you, as I expressed it voting for B removing USA. Problem is that some poeple just undo edits without cheking the discussion pages. Even though little poeple voted, I think we have some consent on the ordering. The question of leaving USA out or not is, still to be resolved. We should wait a bit longer to decide on this, OK? Thanks, Mariano 11:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
The reason I initially pushed for a list of the top 5 countries in numeric order, followed by a general comment, was that people made the exact same changes proposed by Mariano; "Maybe even remove USA, or replace it with Peru." That thinking of giving priority to one country because it has Spanish as an official language, in this case Peru, over another that doesn't but which happens to have more speakers than the first country, in this case the USA, is what initially caused the category box to be longer than the article itself; and in an order changed by the nationality of every new wikipedian modifying the list. This is especially true for Peru (which has Spanish as one of three official languages, with Quechua and Aymara), where despite Spanish being an official language, a great proportion of the population are Amerindian-speakers. That's when we had small population countries like Bolivia before large countries like Colombia, Cuba before Chile, Peru before Argentina, Costa Rica before Ecuador, and even the Philippines (with 3,000 Spanish-speakers amidst 107 million Austronesian-speaking Filipinos) but no mention of Belize or the USA (c. 30 million Spanish-speakers.) Al-Andalus 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
On a related note, may I mention that on the English language article, the "Spoken in" category is in the current format used on this article ("Option A"), that is by number of native speakers; United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and others. Notice United States is placed before United Kingdom because of numeric supremacy, the same format is currently used here, but the change wants to be made to "Option B" to place Spain first, and THEN the next four in numeric order. If the change is made to "Option B" (which I support, as long as it is maintained) then I would encourage the same changes to be made to the English language article. Al-Andalus 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I don't think the number of speakers is so important. Otherwise we would put Colombia before Spain. If you'd like to compare this article to its English counterpart, please note that it's short list does not include India, where English is an official language, and a lot of people speaks it. I Consider the worldwide cultural influence of the country regarding the Spanish language. Therefore (and even I'm not Peruvian) I consider Peru to be culturally far more important in the Spanish speaking world since it gave the world writers such as Mario Vargas Llosa. But I wouldn't force Peru to the list, I just think that USA shouldn't be in the short list, because it's culturally not important to the Spanish language. Mariano 08:03, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
As a citizen of a country outside of the Americas, I would counter your argument that the United States is not culturally important to the Spanish language, and its diffusion around the world (at least as it perceived by the non-American citizens of the world).
You seem to be, at first glance, correct. US culture, and consequently, American English, is culturally pervasive throughout the Spanish-speaking world, although "leastmost" in Spain, where Spanish is spoken as a first language by only barely as many people as wild conjecture based on US Census data indicates it is spoken in the US. There's more to this, however, than first glances, and I don't believe, that you have begun to comprehend Mariano's point. I believe what he was attempting to convey is the very relevant point that Spanish, as a language spoken in the US, is utterly irrelevant to the influence the US has internationally, including in hispanoamerica. As a citizen of a country outside of the Americas, also apparently a non-Spanish speaker, I submit to you that your perception, at least as you've worded it, is completely without concrete basis. TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I can almost guarantee you that the countries responsible for pushing the greatest influence in the spread (conscious or not) of the Spanish language towards the rest of the world are; Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile AND the United States of America.
Your ability to "almost guarantee" anything is hereby horribly suspect, since there are no countries "pushing the ... spread of the Spanish language". The only country that ever pushed the expansion Spanish was Spain, the international influence of which, already waning, came to a complete screeching crashing halt with the Spanish-American War, over a century ago. TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Off topic: Cervantes Institute is a public organization created by Spain for promoting and teaching Spanish language and spreading Spanish and "Hispano-American" culture. Ejrrjs | What? 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The inclusion of four of these countries (Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile) is based largely on the great number of well-known literary contributions to the world in that language, more so than any other Spanish-speaking countries. Added to this is the fact that three of those countries (Spain, Mexico, Argentina) also contribute largely to international cinema, viewed and associated with the Spanish language by millions of non-Spanish speakers. Finally, in the modern globolised world that we live in, the most important and consciously significant medium by which Spanish is diffused today (purposefully or not) is by television.
Wonderful. So why, pray tell, do you insist on pushing for the inclusion of the US?TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The contributions made by the medium of television (which has been primarily important across the English-speaking world) is arguably the greatest and most important that the Spanish language has ever had in its linguistic and cultural diffusion, as recognised by your average citizen of the world. The large Hispanic population of the US (the largest minority) has consequently lead to the inclusion of their ethnicity, culture and language in the plots, characters and discourse in the vast majority of programming. As such, after English, Spanish is a language commonly associated (by non-American English-speakers) with the United States. This should be no surprise. In an English-speaking country (Australia as an example) television content can be well over 70% American produced, and most Spanish is introduced via this medium. Programmes such as CSI, NYPD, Desperate Housewives, Oprah, flood television viewing time slots, which is why Australian broadcasting laws dictate at least 25%[?] of content be Australian produced.
Your first sentence is characteristically (for you) incomprehensible. It is full of English words, but its structure is so mangled that by the time you get to the end of it, those of us who actually speak English are left wondering "wtf are you talking about?!" The "large Hispanic population of the US" is a census bureau category, and living in the US, I can tell you, there are a great many Hispanics whose Spanish is even worse than your English, if they speak any Spanish beyond "gringo" and "no". The census bureau's definition of "Hispanic" is even looser than the UN's definition of "Palestinian". BTW, "lead", pronounced "led", is an element, Pb. The word you're looking for is "led". That said, "Hispanic" includes a number of hispanoparlante ethnicities. Your horribly-worded assertion "The large Hispanic population of the US (the largest minority) has consequently lead to the inclusion of their ethnicity, culture and language in the plots, characters and discourse in the vast majority of programming" is almost completely meaningless...and what little meaning as can be gleaned from it is unequivocally false! If you Ozzies associate Spanish with the US, especially as a result of your being swamped by American TV shows, that's a sign of Ozzie ignorance, not of the influence of Spanish on American Culture, or more relevantly, of Spanish spoken in the US' importance vis à vis Hispanoparlante culture in the rest of the world. CSI:Miami and NYPD Blue happen to be based in two of the 3 largest urban concentrations of hispanics in the US, and are completely unrepresentative of US culture, even US urban culture. Desperate Housewives and Oprah are unspeakably irrelevant to this discussion, as is the makeup of Australian television broadcasts.TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, if you were to ask a person at random the following question What countries would you associate the Spanish language with?, in an Australian reply most would answer Spain (for obvious reason), then Chile and Argentina (these two constitute most of Australia's Hispanic population) and THEN the United States of America before any other country. This very inclusion of the USA before another Spanish-speaking country is because of the role television plays in the modern world and its perceptions. As already stated, television programming for the English-speaking world comes largely from the USA. Most references to "Hispanic culture" and the greatest exposure and awareness to Spanish (in words, phrases, etc. used by Hispanic characters on US programmes) comes from American produced television, which highly influences the association of that language with the contemporary United States.
Great. Since the US is utterly irrelevant, as mentioned above, let's just leave it at 3 countries then...especially since the US is already mentioned, along with every other fracking place in the world with at least 3 spanish-speakers, later on in the article. I would submit to you that the inclusion of the US has more to do with Australian ignorance of the rest of the world, since that's what you're describing, than with any comparative importance of the US when it comes to a description of the importance of Spanish. TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Your average non-American in an English-speaking country (unfortunately quite ignorant to extra-cultural knowledge) would be hard pressed to know places by the names of Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua or Honduras even exist, nor would they know what languages are spoken there, and much less would they associate these countries with the Spanish language. But they would definitely know the United States, they would also know that the largest proportion of Americans after "non-Hispanic Whites" are Hispanics (as seen and taught by TV) and that the language spoken by Hispanics is Spanish, thus associating the USA with Spanish. Al-Andalus 04:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Your wanton hubris in pretending to speak for the average non-American is breathtaking (but not surprising anymore). If people really don't know of places such as Perú, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Honduras, that's pretty sad. That said, however, your idea that we should be stooping to the lowest common denominator is in direct conflict with the ideology that drives the entire Wikipedia project. This isn't Funk and Wagnalls for First Graders, nor Dumbed Down World Encyclopedia. TomerTALK 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hold on a second, we should include USA because the ignorants think its important? I thought this was trying to be an Encyclopedia... -Mariano 07:28, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
To those who voted A, on comments about English language: Let me remind you that not even in that page people agree on the Population scheme. UK is still in the first place. (At list right now) .-Mariano 09:04, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
USA or not USA
Guys, I suggest we cool down a bit, and lower the tone of the argument. I believe Al-Andalus has not successfully showed the importance of including USA in the short list of countries where Spanish is spoken. Wether other countries deserve to be there or not seams to be secondary, as most of us would prefer to have only Spain, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia.
I trust we will find a solution in a civiliced way, and that we can all keep open to a different opinion. -Mariano 10:35, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
As Mariano implied before, an encyclopedia should attempt to enlighten the reader, not to conform to its preconceptions and likely associations. It is very possible that people around the globe associate Spanish with the USA because there are a lot of Hispanics in US TV shows, but this is an artifact of demographics and the media. "References to Hispanic culture" in the US may be abundant, but outside the US "Hispanic culture" means "what American TV shows Latinos doing, even if their Spanish is horrible", i. e. unrepresentative regarding Spanish-language culture. Also, this... "The contributions made by the medium of (English-speaking) television ... is arguably the greatest and most important that the Spanish language has ever had". Hello? Cervantes? Borges? Vargas Llosa? García Márquez? --Pablo D. Flores 11:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pablo D. Flores, I stand by my statement "The contributions made by the medium of (English-speaking) television ... is arguably the greatest and most important that the Spanish language has ever had". The only thing I will clarify about this statement is that it is meant in the sense that it is the most important medium Spanish has ever had among the masses, among your average joe who gets most of his knoweladge from modern visual/audio media, not among the educated, literate people such as yourself. I do understand your immediate questioning of great literary authors such as "Cervantes? Borges? Vargas Llosa? García Márquez?" but I was speaking of the average person. Like it or not, most people hardly ever pick up a book, much less of such literary greatness as those produced by the authors you have quoted. It is educated people like you (not sarcasm) that know such authors, and educated people like you that have the brains to associate the Spanish language with said authors. However, to the worlds's misfurtune, most people aren't as interested in reading books as you, and therefore they take what little they know from visual media such as movies and TV. Al-Andalus 15:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I'm not sure you actually understand what we are trying to tell you. English speaking television can only give a cultural stereotype of the Spanish speaker (probably Mexican) and it has nothing to do neither with the Spanish language nor with the importance of the language in USA towards the world. I don't consider No problemo to be Spanish language influence. Again, it's of an Encyclopedia to clarify what people misconceives. -Mariano 09:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
In fact, it might be more than simply misconception. See this page on Mock Spanish. I'm not implying that every American TV series denigrates Hispanics or the Spanish language (though I think the abundance of Latinos is suspicious - in many cases it's obvious that token Hispanics are just a recent addition to the already compulsory token Blacks and token gays on TV). What we are saying is that the kind of "Spanish influence" being talked about is not the kind exerted by a maid called Rosita or a policeman called Carlos or Bart Simpson saying "Caramba" on American TV. This is exotic flavouring or mock Spanish or a crude attempt at showing ethnic tolerance, but not Spanish language culture (only American culture that employs Spanish). --Pablo D. Flores 14:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Al-Andalus' statement may actually be correct. Unfortunately. Fortunately, however, it's probably only correct for Al-Andalus. TomerTALK July 5, 2005 00:47 (UTC)
/v/ and /b/
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've just reverted an addition by an unregistered user (128.84.178.161) stating that /v/ and /b/ are different phonemes in Spanish. The text:
The generalization that /v/ and /b/ are always pronounced the same in Spanish is incorrect, and is determined by several factors, including geography of the speaker, the and phonological context within or between words.
There is some truth in this, for I know in Chile, many people pronounce the v as it is pronounced in English. But I would say this is purely dialect and not proper spoken Spanish.
-grapisavillain
This came with no source, no discussion, and as you see, it's rather vague. Does somebody know of any dialect that differences these two phonemes? Many people pronounce intervocalic /b/ as [v] rather than [β], sometimes for emphasis (I do it sometimes), but this phonetic, not phonemic, and even so it is an irregular idiolectal thing... --Pablo D. Flores13:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Only first grade teachers, but that's hardly a dialect! -Mariano 14:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Cervantes
Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why Cervantes? A bit like demonstrating English with Shakespeare. This language is so dated as to be a bad illustration of Spanish, SqueakBox 18:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
You will have a serious problem trying to find a writer that would satisfy all the flavours of the Castilian language. At least Cervantes is universally accepted. -Mariano08:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, no ha mucho tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor.. Besides hidalgo, adarga, and rocín, which are hardly used (which is understandable, since it's about a knight, ie: not modern times), I fail to see what qualify as dated. If I were to read "En un lugar de Panama, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, no ha mucho tiempo vivia un caballero de los que [something, give me a break, i'm not a writer]", I would hardly think of it as dated, certainly litery, but it's a book snippet, so... SpiceMan13:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Subdialect
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In this case, it is enough, there is no "Spanish Spanish" dialect to which "Castilian Spanish" would be a subdivision of :-)
Regarding subdialect as a technical term, it appears several times in Scholar Google with the expected meaning, ~~
Use of "Hispanophone"
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm really curious about something. My American Heritage Dictionary lists the words "francophone" and "anglophone" but no similar word referring to Spanish. I independently coined the word "hispanophone," but I find it hard to believe that someone else somewhere hasn't come up with it. It's not that hard for anyone with a good education and a little creativity to use or understand such a term.
Does anyone have a dictionary that lists "hispanophone"? I find it kind of odd (and frankly a little lazy) that we have a more errudite term for "French-speaking" and "English-speaking" but not for "Spanish-speaking." Personally, I prefer these "-phone" words to these awkward, hyphenated phrases. Why is "hispanophone" not in use like "francophone" and "anglophone"?
Both these terms were coined as a result of the politicization of the language situation in Canada where, were there a significant hispanoparlante population, "hispanophone" or "castillophone" or something of that nature would no doubt exist. TomerTALK 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think the best word would be Hispanohablante (Spanish for Spanish speaker); as the french already use Francophone.
I'm going to have to vote no on that one, as it's a spanish word, and this is the English version of wikipedia. I see nothing wrong with hispanophone; as this [site http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_hispanophone.htm] explains, it's a perfectly cromulent word, albeit a somewhat new one. At the same time, I don't see what's wrong with the less-stuffy spanish-speaker and spanish-speaking. For example, "..large number of spanish speakers" sounds infinitely better than "..large number of hispanophones", and it prevents the ignorant from thinking hispanophone is some sort of whisper-in-a-circle game a la "Chinese Telephone" (I believe the PC crowd calls this game "Broken Telephone" nowadays) ThePedanticPrick17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Proposal to shrink language box
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I realize this has been the subject of a ridiculous amount of sometimes frivolous debate, but I'd like to propose the adoption of a language box of more limited scope. As it presently stands, the language box is a mini article all by itself, instead of acting as a quick guide to the language, where it's spoken, where it's official, etc. As you can see (despite the fact that the interloping lines separating sections don't appear here on the talk page), this not only removes the silly sounding "and dozens of other" pedantry, but also distills the regions where it's spoken into something somewhat less precise, but this is a good thing...after all, that's specifically what the "regions" section is supposed to be for.
Even in this new proposal, the infobox is still way too big. If English language can cut it down to a decent size, than so could Spanish. If no one wants to take the responsibility and you're willing to trust someone who is neutral in terms of not being a native of any Spanish-speaking country, I can do it. Just please don't let it stay as bloated as it is now...PeterIsotalo21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
The region section has now been made optional. You can leave out either one of states or region. Simply leave out the parameter you don't need. The infobox is designed to be brief, so it does look awkward when it's crammed full of this stuff: an exercise in minimalism. --Gareth Hughes17:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Spanish translation
What is the best translation of the English expression "see attached" to Spanish?
Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
See this. This question was not settled by the earlier discussion and it seems to me that someone included their pet country despite the discussion. The USA is clearly one of the leading hispanophone countries and it makes no sense not to include it. It is a purely NPOV way of listing the countries to simply list them in order of number of speakers. That way, no one gets their favourite country to come first, second or anywhere unless they can convince ten million migrants to make it their home and start speaking Spanish. Clair de Lune02:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
And please make a case here on talk before changing the box again. It could be considered "POV" to make any selection of countries whatsoever: particularly if you make your choice in a way that deliberately excludes the United States, which is notably hispanophone. We cannot accommodate every POV. We know that. This is one of the cases where the POVs are exclusive. I don't strongly favour one or the other, but I'd like to see a reasoned case for what we put. Please don't just revert it. The selection I have opted for is in order of number of speakers. This is quite neutral. It doesn't judge the countries. If you wanted more included, that would be okay. It's also apparent to the reader why the nations are listed, and why they are in the order given. SqueakBox, your selection is, I'm afraid, inherently POV. It's your decision whether Spanish is the "dominant" language in one or another place -- you're not referring to a source (I did, you'll note, in the above). I'd have had more sympathy if you'd listed countries where it is an "official" language, but you did not. It's not apparent to the reader why you have made the choice you've made. Leaving out the States makes a strong implication that it is not a legitimate language in the States, where many services are delivered in Spanish and there is some impetus for Spanish to be made an official language. By leaving it out, you seem to be pushing the POV that it should not (I doubt you are but that's the impression a reader will walk away with). With my list, the reader can see that plainly the countries are listed in order of number of speakers. None is left out, none has been preferred. Clair de Lune02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Less than 10% of Americans speak Sp as a first language. Prejudice against small countries like Honduras is blatant POV, SqueakBox 02:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
With the exceptions of Paraguay and (if you count all the Maya dialects together) Guatemala, Spanish is the plurality language in all the countries mentioned. It is also, I think, the majority language of all the countries listed save Paraguay, Guatemala, and Bolivia. It is certainly the majority language of Peru, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there - Paraguay would be a much better example of unequal treatment. That said, all of the countries listed have Spanish as the official language, and as the principal language of government and inter-ethnic communication. (One would imagine that even in the countries that have high Indian populations, the vast majority of the population has at least some command of Spanish, although I obviously don't have any numbers to back this up) In the United States, Spanish is a minority language, and, except for in certain areas of the southwest, essentially a diaspora language. There are about 2 million speakers of Chinese in the United States. This is rather similar to the number of Chinese speakers in Singapore. But Singapore is a country where Chinese is the principal language, and the United States is one where Chinese is the language of a minuscule minority (0.78%). Are you saying that, just because the United States is such a big country compared to Singapore, we should list it before Singapore in a list of countries where people speak Chinese? johnk05:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Are you saying that Chinese speakers in the States are not really speaking Chinese? You are taking what might be called a nationalist view of language. You are saying that country X is Spanish-speaking, while country Y is not. There's a lot of baggage comes with that POV. Also, you might like to look up "diaspora", John. There's no applicable definition of "diaspora" that would apply to Spanish in the United States without also applying to English. Unless you are labouring under the misconception that English was born in the States? If you had chosen to write a list of countries where Spanish is the "official" language, we would be having a different discussion (I noted this above). But you did not (and rightly so).Clair de Lune04:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree with John. Even in Guatemala the Mayan languages are in retreat and Spanish becoming more important and dominant every day (this is what they have told me, and what I have seen) whereas many Hispanics who stay in the US end up, or their children end up, just speaking English. Wikipedia tends to have a systemic bias towards big countries, and towards the US, which I do not believe is justified, hence my adding the small countries where Spanish is dominant and not just the big ones, SqueakBox 16:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
You just aren't taking the point, SqueakBox, which is that you are pushing a chauvinist line. You are saying that the United States is not allowed to be considered Spanish-speaking, even though it contains far more Spanish speakers than the countries you want to include in its place. I agree that Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards big countries, but this is not in effect here. The only bias being indulged is anti-Americanism. An article that says "Spanish is spoken in..." and then pointedly omits one of the countries in which it is most spoken is indeed biased.
The solution now is ridiculous. It has no upside and solely the downside of the anti-American bias. Spanish is a second language for many in the countries you list (including Spain!). You further showed your bias in not listing Equatorial Guinea, where Spanish is an official language. I'm content with your solution of listing all nations where Spanish is widely spoken as a first language but that must include the United States. Many Hispanics may well stop speaking Spanish, SqueakBox, but maybe 30 million have not. That's a lot of people who you think don't count. Clair de Lune04:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The point is, Honduras and El Salvador, and even Guatemala and Bolivia (maybe not Paraguay, though...at least for first language speakers) have a much higher percentage of Spanish-speakers than the United States does. johnk05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Is that the point? It looks like a new point. John, I'll concede this if you like, and you can reorder the countries in the order of percentage of first-language speakers, so long as it's clearly labelled as that. What I won't agree to is a list that tries to downplay the importance of Spanish speakers in the States. This reflects a POV and an attitude that I think are unacceptable in an encyclopaedia that tries to be neutral. Clair de Lune01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
You might as well say the UK is an Urdu speaking country. The number of speakers of only Spanish in the US is not that great, as I am sure that many of those 30 million (only 11%) also speak English and use it a lot in their daily lives, and Spanish can in no way be considered in the same way as south of the border. Again Spain does not compare to the US. Anyone who knows any of these countries understands the difference, and it is a greaty divide, SqueakBox 05:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The UK is an Urdu-speaking country. Only a downright racist would deny it; actually, not even them because it's the kind of thing they like to whine about. It has the third-highest population of Urdu speakers in the world, although to be honest most of them have Panjabi as their first language, and speak Urdu as a second. Of course, many of the Urdu speakers can also speak English. By your lights, that means they are simply not Urdu speakers. Their culture and language are extinguished because they also speak the majority language.
It is not racist to say that the UK is not "an Urdu-speaking country." Because it is not. It is a country that has a significant Urdu-speaking minority. But that's not the same thing at all. BtW, the fact that most of the Urdu speakers have Punjabi as their first language does mean, by most standards, that they are not Urdu speakers - they are Punjabi speakers. And it is not a terrifically high honor to have the "third-highest population of Urdu speakers in the world," since the vast majority of Urdu speakers live in the countries with the two-highest populations of Urdu speakers, India and Pakistan. This is like saying that Bangladesh is a Burmese-speaking country because it has the second highest population of Burmese-speakers in the world. johnk05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid it is. You are taking the line that a nation can only speak one language, which is utter nonsense, it should go without saying. The strict identification of nation and language is indeed a tenet of most racist philosophies. You are tout court arguing that Urdu speakers in the UK are not really Urdu speakers because Urdu speakers live in Pakistan or India and cannot be in the UK. But they are, and the UK is an Urdu-speaking country, just as it is a Welsh-speaking country. Bangladesh is a Burmese-speaking country by any standards, except if one argues that only those people in Myanmar speak Burmese (this is slightly complicated by the Bangladeshi Burmese having their own dialect).
Your argument is incredibly flimsy. By your lights, you would have to deny that Belgium is francophone, because most French speakers live in France. You would certainly have to deny Switzerland is Italian-speaking, because Italian speakers are something of a minority there (a smaller minority in Switzerland than hispanophones in the US, actually). You might even have to deny that the UK is English-speaking, because most English-speakers live outside the UK, very much outnumbering the English-speaking UK population.
Next you will have to argue that there is some utterly arbitrary limit at which a nation can be considered to speak a particular language. What will it be? You will have to set it so that it excludes Urdu from the UK and Spanish from Spain, but does not exclude Italian from Switzerland, where it is an official language, or French from Canada, or Fula from Guinea, or any of the myriad languages that have a majority in one place and minorities of various sizes in others. Grace Note06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I repeat, SqueakBox, that your argument seems to be based purely in chauvinism and does not reflect the world as it is today. It's true that people who are members of a minority culture do tend to surrender their language in time (particularly in places such as the States where use of it is deprecated and even more so where it is not a language of instruction). But that doesn't mean that they don't exist or don't speak it. Percentagewise, more Americans speak Spanish than Britons speak Welsh, and of the latter, all or nearly all speak English too. Would you suggest that there are no Welsh-speakers in the UK? (Take care in thinking about your answer, because it won't do to say "Yes, but England conquered Wales and it remains the Welsh homeland" because of course the western United States and even parts of the east were hispanophone before the anglophones arrived, and the notion of Wales as a "homeland" for culturally Welsh people is problematic.) We won't talk about Gaelic in either Scotland or Ireland. I'm sure you're taking the point by now. Although these places had different histories, the same processes happen. Clair de Lune01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Welsh, at least, is the language of a distinct geographical area. This is not the case for Spanish in the United States, except in a few parts of South Texas, perhaps. Furthermore, Welsh is only spoken in Wales, so a listing of where it is spoken would have to mention it being spoken in Wales. Spanish is spoken in a lot of places, and listing the United States gives perhaps undue prominence to the diaspora population of Spanish-speakers in the United States. johnk05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Claire it is 2 against 1 right now. The percentages speaking Spanish are clearly as high in Belize as in the states and no higher in the Sahara. There is simply no justification for calling the US a Spanish speaking country and it seem to just be promoting a jingoistic pro US view, SqueakBox 00:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to avoid this stupid USA or not discussion for months, but it's taking longer than I thought to get settled by itself. I'm against USA being here. Why? For the same reason India is not on the English language article language box.
India has 2-4% of English speakers [1][2] (that's 19 - 38 million people. According to wikipedia itself, the figure is between 50 million and 250 million (List of Indian languages by total speakers). Taking the 250 million figure (debatable), that's around 84% of the third most populated country in the world: United States. According to Languages in the United States, 82% of USA's population speak English as first language. So, theres a probability that there are more (second language) speakers of English in India than first language speakers of English in USA. Even the lowest figures (19 million) is more than double the population than Australia, and Australia is on the box, yet India is barely mentioned on the English language article. If India is not in the English language article's {{language}} box, I don't see why USA should be here.
Mexicans pursuing the american dream don't make USA a spanish speaking country, just a country with lots of spanish speaking immigrants. SpiceMan (会話) 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Another thought, by 1914 in Argentina, which had a population of 7,900,000, 43% where immigrants (3,397,000), of which 50.1% where Italians (1,701,897) — Study on immigrants from the University of Buenos Aires (spanish). Nowadays if you hear someone speaking Italian, it's because you either accidentally changed to RAI on your cable TV, or some Italian tourist is around. The same will happen in USA, Spanish speakers are immigrants, or they offspring... by the 3rd and 4th generation the numbers will certainly be way lower (just as italian, irish, etc. descents now speak english and just a couple words in their ancesters language in USA). Is it worth it to discuss such a brief phenomenom this hotly? SpiceMan (会話) 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Problem is: there are Spanish-speaking people in U.S.A. who are not immigrants: their ancestors lived in present-day U.S.A. speaking Spanish before integration of those territories in U.S.A. They never switched languages and will keep speaking Spanish for many generations. U.S.A. has an official Academia de Lengua Española (which is considered by Real Academia de la Lengua in Spain as equal to other American Academias). So, I guess U.S.A. can be considered a Spanish-speaking country, although the main language is, of course, English. It's the same with Spain: Spain is, for instances, a Catalan-speaking country, although the main language is, of course, Spanish. This is not a question I think deserves much discussion, since both sides are, in a way, right. Marco Neves
unless you could back your claim, i won't believe tht 11% of the US speaks Spanish as a first language. And if that is so, Brazil should be a japanese speaking country, because it has the largest Jap. pop out of Japan, and the US should be a chinese speaking country because 2 million speak chinese. It is merely a country which speaks a certain language, other than its official language.
I wouldn't go round Spain saying it is a Catalan speaking country, as outside of Cataluna and Valencia people would be very hostile to the idea, and Catalan is not spoken. Language is a very hot subject in Spain, much more, I imagine, than in the States. Do we have any idea how many people's families have spoken Spanish for generations?
I am quite acquainted with Spain's situation regarding languages. The fact that most Spaniards are hostile to Catalans does not mean Spain is not a Catalan-speaking country (despite the fact that Catalan is spoken in a closed area)... Regarding USA, as far as I know, many regions in the South have a large parte of population speaking Spanish since before U.S.A. integrated those regions. In fact, in New Mexico, Spanish is official (see for your self: New Mexico, even the name of the state is also in Spanish). Marco Neves23:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. There is a movement in the States to have Spanish made an official language, and of course, a countermovement to prevent that. But this article need not take either side. It should simply state honestly that the US has one of the larger Hispanophone populations on earth. Why pretend it doesn't? Why tolerate even for one second that the inhabitants of the US are not really speaking Spanish, or don't have a "Hispanic culture" or any other nonsense that simply pushes a particular POV? Grace Note06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but you can't say a country is a Spanish speaking country (meaning Spanish is widely used by population(40% maybe?)unless its officially titled a Spanish speaking country. But since the US has no official languages, i would agree that it is a "Spanish" speaking country, along with an Urdu speaking country, a french speaking country, a native american country, etc.
Belize
Latest comment: 20 years ago16 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry, Belize is just part of the fallout. I have no problem with including it. Please revert to my version with any nations included that you feel should be. You simply haven't substantiated your version, SqueakBox. Read through my discussion and I think if you put aside your bias you'll see it's reasonable. Yours is directed, it seems, solely at making out that the US is not Spanish-speaking, which is unacceptably POV. I am trying to achieve a compromise with you but you have to ask yourself whether you're making the same effort. Clair de Lune04:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have no intention of reverting the article. That's why I asked you to do it. You simply have not made a case for your version, SqueakBox, and because you haven't done so, and will not discuss a compromise, we are stuck with an edit war. I have offered you and John two compromises: one, to include all Spanish-speaking nations in the box (I favour this solution and cannot understand why you want to exclude it); two, to list all nations by percentage of hispanophones, so long as that is clearly marked.
You are simply demanding to have your own way. Because we disagree over whether you are right, that's hardly likely to resolve the matter, is it?
So I think in fairness you ought to either give an argument for not including the United States that answers the points I made or voluntarily return the article to the version I made, with any additions you feel are necessary. A refusal to do either would certainly strike me as a declaration of your unwillingness to work with me towards a compromise. Clair de Lune04:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'll take your message point by point:
My point, in response to your message which I have now read, is that it is not the same in the US.
Not the same as what? The article is about Spanish language and the list gives places where people speak Spanish. You have to be arguing that people in the States don't really speak Spanish.
That is where we disagree. can you source your claim.
I sourced my claim that people speak Spanish in the United States. Are you seriously asking for another source? What would be acceptable to you?
I want sources that it is used in the judicial system, the schools and the army? SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why would I need to source that? I've never said it was. I need only source that it is spoken in the United States, because that is the limit to what I have claimed. Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Is Spanish an official language in the US?
The list is not a list of places that have Spanish as an official language. Given that there is a campaign to make it one in the US, which many chauvinists strongly oppose, it's a contentious issue. To make a list of countries where it is an official language would be unacceptably POV for that reason, if not any other. Whether it is official or not has no bearing on whether people speak it, which they do. Thirty million of them do! Would you argue that we should not have articles on other languages that are spoken but are not official? That would mean deleting all of our articles on Native American languages of the USA. Are you suggesting that?
In other words, no it isn't.
I have not claimed it is. Perhaps you could answer my other points. Do you suggest deleting articles on other languages spoken in America that are not official? Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
In how many places is it used as the first language, or equal with English, in the schools? in the legal system: etc.
So, because Spanish is officially suppressed in the US, you feel we should not say that people speak it? Is that your case? I couldn't accept it if it is. I suggest you consider the history of Welsh in thinking about that, not to mention other minority languages in countries that do not allow them to be used in schools etc.
Officially suppressed. Now that is POV, and insulting at the same time, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
As an English person I need to and feel duty bound to learn Spanish here.
Yes, but you are clearly an English speaker! You have not ceased to be one. If you spoke English in the home you would be entirely analogous with the people we are discussing, regardless what language you feel obliged to use in the courts.
Obviously I use English, as in right here, but that has no bearing on the fact that I conform and speak Spanish outside my computer, including with my partner.
Okay, so you might not consider yourself an "English speaker" and might not tick that box on a census form. That makes you different from the nearly 30 million people in the United States who self-identify as Spanish speakers. Clair de Lune
I just said I am an English speaker. My job is entirely English, etc.
Many Hispanics feel the same when they are in the States, and want to integrate.
So what? Most immigrants in most places assimilate the dominant language. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that regardless of that, if they still speak their native language, then they still speak it! Thirty million people speak Spanish in the United States, quite regardless of what their grandchildren will speak.
i think your mixing up ethnicity and language. I could be of spanish decent, it wouldn't mean i actually speak Spanish. I doubt 11% of the US speak spanish, but rather are of SPanish decent. - K
Which is 10% speaking it some of the time, probably 3-5% all the time, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ten per cent is clearly more than none at all. I am not saying it is a majority language, any more than Kurdish is a majority language in Turkey; but simply that it is spoken in the States, just as Kurdish is in Turkey. Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have provided figures that show that 3% of the population of the United States speak no or very little English. You are quite simply discounting them for no reason whatsoever that I can see. Far fewer than that percentage speak Welsh in the UK! Clair de Lune05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Far fewer speak Welsh. in Wales itself far more do, as you would know if you had spent time in a Welsh speaking area. But the diffference is that Welsh is an official language in wales, besides which I have never made an edit about Welsh, and find it unlikely I ever will.
Sorry, I don't understand the first part of that. Wales itself is part of the UK. Far more people speak Spanish in LA than in Boston but that is no part of this discussion. I am not even feeling the need to point to those places where Spanish is the majority language or close to it. Welsh is an official language in Wales, but I have comprehensively answered your contention that we should only list countries in which Spanish is an official language. This is an article about the Spanish language, not about government policies on it as such. Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If their kids are taught in English in the schools they will end up thinking in English. And this is what happens, as I know from friends who went there from here and switched to English. now they are back here they switch back
Yes, this is all true, but none of it changes the truth that the United States has an enormous hispanophone population. Many of them speak Spanish in the home. See this. They used the Census results for their figures: 38.5 million Hispanics, 27.5 million speaking Spanish in the home, 8.3 million of them Spanish dominant (that is, speaking only Spanish or little English). 8.3 million! What's the population of Honduras again?
Hola, ¿que tal?- I spoke spanish, therefore i am spanish. How much spanish does someone need to know in order to "Speak" spanish? How accurate are these stats?
Stop slagging Honduras off as it won't help your case. You just said less than 3% speak Spanish all the time in the US. I reckon it is 97% here, and its ion the schools, the judiciary, the army etc, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't slagged Honduras off. Try not to take everything so personally. A smile would help. The point was that Honduras has a smaller population of Spanish speakers than the United States, which you are trying to remove from the list of countries where Spanish is spoken.
Yes but in Honduras almost everyone always speaks Spanish whereas in the US hardly anyone does, 3-10%, SqueakBox 05:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is the chauvinist argument that you keep making. The hispanophones in the States are not really speaking Spanish because they are a minority. But hang on! They actually far outnumber the hispanophones in Honduras. In a pie chart of world Spanish speakers, they would take a bigger slice. To say Spanish is not spoken in the States ignores that. Perhaps you could stop repeating the same stuff about "official languages" and answer that point. Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is not about percentages of speakers. I have been clear about that. It's about whether there is a Spanish-speaking population. Your argument has now become that you are not a Spanish-speaker unless you are in a country where Spanish is the majority language. This is pure chauvinism and you cannot hope for it to stand in an encyclopaedia based on neutral expression of the facts. Clair de Lune05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I do say. It's quite clear that your argument boils down to pure chauvinism. You want to exclude hispanophones who live in the States because they don't live in a "Hispanic" country. All of your arguments that you are using to back that POV you do not feel can be applied to other languages in other countries. You only want them applied to Hispanics in the US. So I do say that that POV won't stand, because it is not based on rock but in the sands of your personal feelings about Hispanics in the US. Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Now please, your argument is, I think, purely based in chauvinism. It boils down to "they're not Spanish-speakers because they're not really Hispanic now they live in an anglophone country". Please return the article to my version and make the inclusions you feel it needs. Clair de Lune04:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think yours is the chauvinist and deeply flawed argument, and offensive to many Spanish speaking counbtries I would bet. As you say, Spanish is suppressed in the US, so we must change the encyclopedia to fight for it's freedom. no thanks, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
My argument is the exact opposite of chauvinist. I am suggesting that people's right to their own language (and recognition that they are a speaker of it) has nothing to do with where they live or whether they form a majority. I say that the United States must be included in any list of places Spanish is spoken simply because many of its inhabitants -- a number far exceeding the populations of many of the countries you accept as "Spanish speaking" -- speak it! I am not looking to free Spanish from American suppression. But I'm equally not keen on Wikipedia's suppressing minority languages because its editors think only a majority language should get a mention. Clair de Lune05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Spanish a minority language. you have got to be kidding. you certainly haven't convinced me, (whoops didn't sign}SqueakBox 06:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't convinced you that it's a minority language? Are you joking? A bigger percentage of people in the States speak Spanish as their first or only language than do Welsh in the UK. Are you saying Welsh is not a minority language in the UK, or are you saying -- and this is precisely what I am suggesting you are saying -- that different standards must apply to the United States than apply to any other place? Clair de Lune05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
As John said, the issue doesn't arise as they only speak Welsh in Wales. I suggest reporting things as they are and not as individuals would like them to be, SqueakBox 06:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. So let's report that Spanish is spoken in the US. As it is, by thirty million people. I fail to see what Welsh only being spoken in Wales, which is not true, of course (I know several Welsh-speakers who live in England), would have to do with it. Do you not count as a language speaker if you move countries then? When we tot up the number of anglophones in the world, are you out because you live in Honduras? Clair de Lune06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Bad faith
Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
I am not accusing you of bad faith because you won't do what I want. I am accusing you of not treating me with the courtesy one expects from another editor. You have not addressed my arguments for my version. Instead, you insist that the US should not be included because Spanish-speakers will "integrate" in due course. This is utterly spurious. I have given sources for very large numbers of hispanophones in the US, and for there being many people who speak Spanish not just at home, but exclusively or almost so. The only substance to your argument was that they did not (or more recently ought not! You don't need to be told that what people should do is not an argument applicable to NPOVing an article). I am accusing you of that lack of courtesy in repeatedly reverting an article without even trying to find a compromise, and in making a veiled threat to report me for breaching the 3RR, when you can clearly see that I am trying to discuss the issue with you and find a way to satisfy both of us. Clair de Lune04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
No I haven't. I have give you masny good examples, such as that Spanish is not an official language in tha States, and it is spoken by a small minority of between 3 and 10%. I could equally accuse you of lack 0of courtesy in reverting me. I have attempted to make changes within the box, you just keep reverting to your fixed version withoput offering everything new, and then accusing me of doing what you are doing. por favor, basta ya. As a new user I was informing you of the 3RR rule. Where did I allegedly threaten to report you. Nowhere, of course, SqueakBox 05:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Let me discuss your "examples". 1/ Spanish is not an official language does not mean that it is not spoken. Kurdish is not, so far as I know, an official language of Turkey. However, it is very much spoken there. Do you seriously suggest rewriting every article that says "Language X is spoken in country Y" where country Y does not have language X as an official language? If you do not, your argument cannot stand. 2/ It is spoken by a minority, but that minority (more than 10% according to the Census, which I provided as a source) far outnumbers the populations of most Spanish-speaking nations. You see nations; I see people. 3/ I have not reverted you without comment or edit summary. I have directed you to talk, where I have explained my case fully. You reverted without doing that. 4/ You have made changes within the box that have entrenched your POV, rather than sought a compromise. 5/ I have given an argument for my version and answered yours point by point. You are yet to show that America does not house any Spanish speakers and the box still says "Spanish spoken in...". So your version is not just highly POV but it's wrong too. 6/ Okay, I read too much into your warning re the 3RR. My apologies.
Now please, you really do need to return the article to my version. By all means, add in any nation you feel is missing, and if you want to order the box by percentage of population speaking Spanish, do so but clearly label it. Clair de Lune05:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me we are talking nations not people. so please stop seeing people and start seeing nations. ie stick to the point. Nation is about place, and nowhere in the US is like everywhere civilisation has reached in Spanish Latin America. You have responded but you have not convinced me at all, SqueakBox 05:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Erm. The article is about Spanish language, not Spanish civilisation in Spanish Latin America. I don't think anyone can convince you of what you are arguing against, because it quite simply has nothing to do with whether people speak Spanish in the States! Which they do. You have not shown that they do not. You have given no sources to suggest that the States cannot be considered a place where people speak Spanish. You have made spurious arguments about people not speaking it (I gave figures to show that they do), about the percentage of people who speak it (I showed that other places with smaller percentages are listed as containing language speakers), about people not having it as a first language (the Census shows there are many), about its not being an official language (I showed that other languages are not official but are still spoken in places around the world, including the States, where for instance Native American languages are not official), about it not being the language of the courts (I explained that the article is not about which languages are used in courts but about the Spanish language, with the box listing who speaks it). Now your argument is that there is nowhere in the United States that is like Latin America. I despair. If you have anything more to add to that, please do, but I think I've covered everything you've argued, and I've given sources for my side. Indeed, I only need one source, the US Census, which clearly shows that Spanish is spoken by a great number of Americans (the Census does not, so far as I know, even include illegals -- let's not go there, hey?). Clair de Lune06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
You remain in a minority of 1 Claire. There is no reason to go back to your version, and I absolutely disagree about the POV as I believe yours is the POV politics pushing view (Spanish suppressed in the US et al) and that I am not promoting a POV view (its not as if I am not including the US in the list. I am and our only dispute is how the US is presented. I cannot give way and let you present that it is equal in the States as to in Honduras or Guatemala merely because the US is a big place with lots of people. If you are in any court in the US you will need a translator if you don't speak English. The same with Spanish in Honduras and most everywhere else in Latin America, (you can have Qechua in Peru, etc, but English nowhere, SqueakBox 06:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
My "POV" is that Spanish is spoken in the US. Yours is that it is not. My source is the US census, which records millions of Spanish speakers. Your source is? It's of absolutely no account whatsoever that you need a translator in court in the US if you don't speak English. You would need one in a Turkish court were you a monoglot Kurd. (Are you, I ask once more, arguing that we should not say Kurdish is spoken in Turkey? The Kurds don't even have a country. That means, by your reasoning, that Kurdish is not actually spoken anywhere on Earth.) The list is not of countries where Spanish is spoken in court. Clair de Lune06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
By your logic we should mention the 1000 languages spoken in London in London. We should also mention every country where Spanish speakers are to be found, which is most countries in the world. To copmpare the States with a real Spanish speaking country is pure POV, and you have failed to produce an argument to the contrary. To stick an English speaking country into the box is ridiculous and POV. It's of absolutely no account whatsoever that you need a translator in court in the US if you don't speak English. Well I think it counts for a lot, SqueakBox 16:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
If there were thirty million Spanish speakers in London, I'd agree that my "logic" dictated we should include the UK. I am not comparing the United States with a real Spanish-speaking country (although I note that yet again you imply that hispanophones in the States do not really speak Spanish. Is it equally ridiculous to stick a Turkish-speaking country into the box on the page for the Kurdish language? Your "logic" would have it that Kurdish is not spoken anywhere on Earth (at least until the new constitution of Iraq is implemented). You think it counts for a lot that you need a translator if you don't speak English in the States? Well, it only goes to show that English is the language of the courts in that country. This article is not about use of Spanish in courts, nor is the list a list of countries that use Spanish in their legal system. It is a list of countries where Spanish is spoken. I have demonstrated that Spanish is spoken in the United States. You have not provided a source that says that it is not. I suggest you do. Clair de Lune07:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
You are in a minority of one. Stop defying consensus and reverting. Who supports your argument? Nobody. Your claim just appears to be an obsession with promoting the US. Please desist as your arguments go nowhere and have been fully refuted. To put the US on a level with Spanish speaking countries merely deceives our readers. How can you stick an English speaking country in that list. Please can you accept the consensus and stop edit warring. I can source Spanish is spoken in India, must we include India as well, and Russia, Holland, Kenya, etc, must we include all these countries up to 180 different countries in the world where Spanish is spoken? SqueakBox 16:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think everybody needs to calm down. The thing is, for languages like Welsh and Kurdish, if one only included countries where they were a majority, or whatever, one couldn't list any place they were spoken at all. This is not true for Spanish, which is one of the most spoken languages of the world. In general, I think diaspora languages should not be mentioned as places where a language is spoken, simply because doing that would make the "where spoken" box practically useless. The only exception would be languages which are entirely Diaspora languages, like Roma. Obviously, though, the issue of Spanish in the United States is a special one, since there are a huge number of Spanish-speakers in the United States, and beyond the general diaspora population found over wide parts of the country, there are actual sizeable areas (especially in South Texas) that are mostly Spanish-speaking. Personally, I wouldn't mind some mention of the United States in the box, I just think it's problematic to just list it among the countries where Spanish is the main language. Why not just list it at the end, with some special text explaining it. On List of languages by number of speakers, we use the formulation "Significant communities in" for countries with large diaspora populations and the like. I don't know if that, specifically, is the right way to go, but something along those lines seems more appropriate than continuing to argue back and forth and accuse each other of acting in bad faith. (For instance, it is quite clear that Clair is not trying to glorify the US, whatever else s/he may be doing). johnk17:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
We do include the US in the box, merely at the end of it and flagged as being a second language, which I think is fair as the US clearly has a significant presence of Spanish speakers, and in that sense is very much like Belize, which is listed alongside it. To not include the US in the box would, I agree, be wrong. I would argue that while Clair is not trying to glorify the US her version still does so in the eyes of our readers by putting an English speaking nation before many Spanish speaking countries. I would argue Claire, that far from taking a chauvinistic line I am doing the exact opposite. I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, association and my work here is informed by a defence and promoting of the poor, third world Spanish countries within this emcyclopedia, of which I believe this case is a good example, SqueakBox 18:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Countries do not speak. At best, that construction is an metonymy for the people in those countries that speak this or that language. Spanish-speaking people in the US are poor and dispossed, as their brethren in their (original) countries; why do you think that they should be hidden? Ejrrjs | What?19:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
As I have already pointed out, I don't think they should, and have included a mention of the US. Most people here think the hispanics in the States are rich because the wages are so much higher. Why do you think they are dispossessed? To say the people here in Latin America are poor and dispossessed is a generalisation. Plenty aren't poor or dispossessed, and the Spanish culture here is not either, SqueakBox 19:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this issue is entirely out of hand with all kinds of innapropriate remarks both ways. Reverts certainly don't help anything, they just make people more mad. I think it's clear that Spanish in the US is a relatively special case. The fact that there are so many Spanish speakers in the US does merit its inclusion in some way in a list of places the language is spoken. The fact that it is such a small % of Americans tells us we shouldn't include it in a way that makes it look like the primary language, as simply putting it plain in the first list does. I'd say that's relatively easily fixed by putting it at the end of the list and explaining that it is a small minority language by percentage, but that the total number is large. But only noting that it is spoken as a second language is incorrect. There are plenty of Spanish only speakers in the US. I've been to practically whole towns in California like that. - TaxmanTalk 22:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Why is Spanish in the US a "special case"? Because this is an anglophone encyclopaedia and there are no users to complain about other biases that are expressed? What on earth did you mean by that? No one has suggested it is the "primary language" of the States (because the article is not about the States). The list is a list of countries where Spanish is spoken. Why should the US be singled out from the others when it houses one of the larger populations of Spanish-speakers? How is *quick maths* 13% a "small" minority? That's a significant minority in my books. As pointed out elsewhere, Paraguay houses a rather small minority of speakers of Spanish as a first language. Should it also be placed last in the list. The criterion SqueakBox seems to be urging is one of linguistic purity, with nations penalised for not being sufficiently Hispanic. Taxman, you're a reasonable editor. Do you really need it pointing out why such a criterion is unacceptable? Grace Note07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Grace, while I agree with your point I urge you to read the talk page more carefully. There is no minority of spanish speaking people in Paraguay, the quoted stats are wrong. Sebastian KesselTalk15:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you can say that the US is a non "Spanish speaking" country, just by sheer force of numbers. If you mean "Country where Spanish is not an official language", is a different thing. --Sebastian KesselTalk16:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is the fact that the courts are in Spanish here (so speak it or have an interpreter) in Honduras and in English (so speak it or have an interpreter) in the States, the schools are in Spanish here, the bureaucracy is in Spanish here, etc, that makes Honduras so different from the States where these things are providedin English. English is on the decline here on the north coast and especially in the Bay Islands, mostly because Spanish is taught in the schools but also because that is what the governemnt wants and so all it's services (judiciary, bureaucracy, etc) are only offered in Spanish. My understanding of the States is that the reverse is the case and that Englishdominates through these factors all the time. I would also generally point out that there is no movement to preserve Spanish in the States (as far as I am aware) that can be compared to the preserving French in Quebec movement. I would much more compare the Hispanics in the US to the Asian (Indian subciontinent) immigrants to the UK while recognising that htere are pockets in states like Arizona where the situation is more mlike the French speakers in Quebec. So yes, Sebastian, my argument has always been that Spanish being the official language here, in Argentina, etc, is what makes the big diference, and which is why the US has, IMO, to stay out of the first cluster of copuntries in the first info box, SqueakBox17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I do agree with that, and like the fact that using a very clear definition (official language) helps draw a clear line between which countries to add and which ones not. --Sebastian KesselTalk17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have changed it according to your suggestion as I want to find a way out of this impasse. I am happy to see the wording I have added perhaps changed as long as it continues to reflect the reality of how things really are. Lets see what Clair thinks, SqueakBox 22:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think that is about as good as it can get. Though if the percentage (or range), and total number of speakers can be had from a pretty reliable source and are reasonably agreed upon, you could make the note shorter by saying In the US it is spoken by x% of the population which amounts to x. It's too much detail for one country which is not ideal, but as mentioned before, it is clearly misleading to list it as if it is the primary language. - TaxmanTalk 01:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course you do. He's supported your POV. He hasn't actually added an argument and every one you made was readily defeated.
Only slightly more people speak French in Canada than speak Spanish in the US! Would you suggest that we remove Canada from the list of French-speaking nations, place it at the end and say it is only a minority language? I'd like Taxman to answer that and to give a cogent answer if not why Canada is not considered a "special case". Grace Note07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It is spoken in: France, including French Overseas Departments, Communities and Territories; Canada; Belgium; Switzerland; many Western and Central African nations; Haiti; and the U.S. states of Louisiana and Maine.
I think it's absolutely clear that the opposition to the inclusion of the United States here is not based on principle, and certainly isn't being applied consistently. Clair de Lune07:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
There's all kinds of things inconsistent in Wikipedia. Our goal is to fix them, and discuss rationally how we can best do that. Pointing fingers doesn't help anything. - TaxmanTalk 22:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I came here as a result of this page being listed at WP:RFC, so I'm offering my two cents. My opinion is that the U.S. should be listed as a country in which Spanish is spoken; the percentage of the U.S. population that is Spanish-speaking is relatively high, about 8% according to Ethnologue, which is about the same as the population of Paraguay that is Spanish-speaking. Saying "the U.S. is a country in which Spanish is spoken" is not the same as saying "the U.S. is a Spanish-speaking country" (which would of course be untrue). I'd also like to point out that not all Spanish speakers in the U.S. are immigrants or the children of immigrants. There are Spanish speakers in California and Texas whose families have been there since those states belonged to Mexico. --Angr/tɔktəmi10:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
8%?!? According to wikipedia it is 75% not 8%, with 90% speaking Guaraní. Thus in no way can Paraguay be compared to the US, SqueakBox 15:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Surely not, as there are far more speakers of Spanish in the US than in Paraguay (5 to 6 times as many), SqueakBox 15:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
According to Ethnologue, there are 186,880 speakers of Spanish in Paraguay out of a population of 6,191,368, which is actually only 3%. In the United States there are 22.4 million speakers of Spanish out of a population of 293 million, which is 7.6%. Ethnologue isn't infallible, though, and I could be persuaded their figure for Spanish speakers in Paraguay is too low. --Angr/tɔktəmi15:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Angr, I think you are wrong. Having been in Paraguay several times, I can tell you that Spanish is as widely spoken as Guarani... probably the site has the stats wrong. --Sebastian KesselTalk16:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ethnologue numbers have to be interpreted carefully. The Ethnologue only counts the first language, the language that is taught in the home.--Prosfilaes19:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I haven't had the pleasure of going to Paraguay but those figures are not credible, whereas the wikipedia figures are credible. There are lots of newspapers, etc, all in Spanish, and it is known as a Spanish speaking country, having it as an official language, etc, SqueakBox 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not defending Ethnologue's numbers, just reporting them. I'm also not in the least suggesting that Paraguay shouldn't be listed as a country in which Spanish is spoken. I agree Ethnologue can't always be trusted, so I've just called up the 2000 U.S. census figures, which show 28.1 million people over 5 years of age who speak Spanish at home in the U.S., out of a population of 262.4 million people over 5 years of age; that's 10.7%. (Even in Kansas, hardly a center of Hispanic culture, 5.5% of the population speaks Spanish at home!) In my book, that's definitely a significant enough portion of the U.S. population to warrant the inclusion of the U.S. in the list. --Angr/tɔktəmi20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Which it already is, though we could include these numbers, SqueakBox 21:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I also came here via the RfC, and I also think the US should be listed. My reasoning being that the large number of Spanish speakers and the fact that a significant minority speaks it makes it logical to include it. I can understand the argument that the US does not contribute much to the culture of the Spanish-speaking world, but that's not really supposed to be the issue here, which is just the prevalence of the language. I won't get into the discussion, I'm afraid, because I have other matters to attend to on Wikipedia; but I just wanted to give you my comments, since you asked for it ;). Junes23:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm... should have looked at the time stamps better. Apparently, the matter is settled already. I think the present version, with 'significant minorities in North America' is pretty good (on the other hand, North America also includes Mexico, right? That's a bit strange) Junes23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
most of South and Central America, substantial minorities in North America, the Iberian Peninsula and enclaves and immigrant groups on all contintents
Yes this is totally wrong. It follows the ignorant idea that Mexico is part of either South America or Central America. It should say something like "most of South America except Brazil and the Guyanas, most of Central America except Belize, all of Mexico, and significant minorities in USA". I'm not sure how significant Spanish is in Canada, but probably not far behind USA. — Hippietrail14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Spanish in U.S.
Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
This is becoming a very messy page...
Regarding Spanish in U.S., consider these facts:
U.S. has no federal official language.
At state level, there are several: English, Spanish, Hawaiian and French (I don't know if there are more). Of these four, English is used as national language; Spanish is used by a sizeble part of non-immigrant population (New Mexico, for instances); Spanish is a language of the U.S., just like Welsh is a language of U.K. or Catalan of Spain.
Real Academia de la Lengua acklowledges U.S. "Academía de la Lengua".
U.S. has a first language, which is English (just like Spanish in Spain). But, in fact, Spanish is as much a language of U.S. as French is of Canada, Catalan of Spain, or Welsh of U.K. - i.e., they are official languages of parts of the respective country. Don't forget: Spanish is official in some parts of U.S.
Please, answer these arguments calmly and open-mindedly. Best regards to you all, Marco Neves18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I am not all excited about including the US, I'd rather say "Some US States", if that is the case. The US as a whole is not a "spanish speaking country". Furthermore, French is indeed a Federal official language of Canada, so let's not compare to that. Catalan is a regional language, accepted in Catalunya but the federal language of Spain is Spanish. I think that's an important distinction. --Sebastian KesselTalk18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
We shouln't compare to Canada if English were an official language of US at federal level. It isn't. In fact, federally speaking, the official status of Spanish is the same as of English (none), just like French status is the same as English in Canada (official). So, in US, the official language is decided in state-level and, in that level, Spanish is official in some states (just like English is official in only a few states). Marco Neves20:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
The situation in Spain is controversial with some in the provinces wanting their language to be the only one, especially in Basque Country, and some Spanish speakers deeply resenting this. I don't get the sense anyone is claiming parts of the US should become officially Spanish speaking. Indeed the impression I get is that hispanics who can't speak English want to but find it very hard. I think the real litmus test is what language(s) the schools teach in and what language(s) the courts function in as well as the official status of a language, which may be a different thing, SqueakBox18:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
(Please, do not call Spanish comunities "provinces". Provinces, in Spain, are another kind of division. Basque Country is a community divided in three provinces. And linguistic situation is controversial but no one denies that Spain has four official languages, although only one in the whole territory. Catalan is used in schools and courts.Marco Neves20:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC))Reply
Regarding U.S., Spanish is official in New Mexico, at least. As for litmus test regarding schools and courts, well, that would mean changing lots of articles throughout Wikipedia. England used French in courts for centuries and English remained the main language. The fact is: Spanish is used by a significant number of non-immigrant people in U.S. and is official in parts of the territory. Marco Neves20:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm spanish and basque speaker, do you know that in Spain our constitution recognizes basque, catalan and galego as different languages and it allows to use them in administration, schools... there is no controversy. Spain has an official language = Spanish, and the other languages are official in some autonomic communities (no provinces), the big difference with US, is the fact that the non spanish languages in Spain has a big culture, history and delimited zones; there are no big changes in the last 500 years in the composition of languages speaked in Spain. In US with migration and people movements the languages change a lot, and now the spanish is becoming an important language in US, more important than all together minor languages in US.--82.130.166.11313:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
The courts thing is nonsense. You can't speak Kurdish in a Turkish court. Does that mean that Kurdish is not spoken in Turkey? And Welsh was, famously so, not in use in Welsh schools until fairly recently. Did people only start speaking Welsh recently? These are all just excuses to exclude the States. Grace Note05:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually, in this context, the proper way to address the importance of the relevance of the use of Spanish in courtrooms is as follows: in the US the business of the court can be carried on in any language, although in most locales it is conducted in English. That said, the business of the court must be conducted, if only via translation, in a language clearly understood by a representative of the court, and by the plaintiff[s] and defendant[s]. Therefore "excuses to exclude the States" is just as ridiculous an assertion as is the assertion that the use of Spanish in courts in the US is an "excuse to include the States". If Spanish is used in the courts, it's to ensure that someone whose knowledge of English might be insufficient to convince the court [i.e., the judge[s] ] that the plaintiff[s] and/or defendant[s] understand all the proceedings(, thus reducing the likelihood of a mistrial declaration or appeal based on "X didn't understand the language"), knows exactly what's going on ... it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that that particular criterion is, in this context, utterly irrelevant. <edit>Use of this criterion would indicate that perhaps Mordvinian should be considered an important language of the US, if a defendant could communicate reliably in only that language.</edit> TomerTALK01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
True, but in the US, some states DO have spanish as an official language (New Mexico is one, if im not mistaken). Regarding the spanish problem, it's better resolved in the Catalan or Basque page, nobody here will deny that Spanish is spoken there. --Sebastian KesselTalk18:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
In view of the last reverts on this very minor point, I'd like to point out that the three following alternatives are grammatically correct:
(1) ¿Habla usted inglés?
(2) ¿Habla inglés usted?
(3) ¿Usted habla inglés?
In turn, each may have one or two pragmatically different meanings, according to the intonation and rhythm. As for me, I would never ever say (1) ¿Habla usted inglés?, because that sounds very weird in my 'lect. I'd rather go for (2) or (3), with a slight preference for the latter. There probably is no way to phrase this in a manner that satisfies everybody... --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Great. Let's go for sei falai inglês? instead. (and yes, I just made that language up... :-p) TomerTALK 11:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't have a clue, though I would plump for 2. Out of curiosity does usted not get used at all in Argentina? If you don't know whether someone speaks English usted would be the only form to use here in Honduras, but this is the country where even lovers sometimes refer to each other as usted (though vos is more common), SqueakBox 16:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
In reality, in Argentina Usted is used almost only when in formal situation (like the German "Sie"). I don't think I ever spoke to my parents/friends/lovers/etc like that. Actually, when a kid refers to me using "Usted" I feel ancient!! :) --Sebastian KesselTalk16:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I would say Disculpe, ¿habla inglés? ("Excuse me ...") without a pronoun. I also feel terrible when someone addresses me as usted; it's almost as bad as señor. (3) would be better written and acceptable as Usted, ¿habla inglés?. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)01:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Given that for English speakers one of the first things you learn is that Spanish doesn't need pronouns in the way English does, how about just "habla ingles?". It kinfd of typifies the language more, SqueakBox 02:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Loanwords Section
I was reading over the article on Japanese and in it they covered borrowings from English and other European languages. Then they continued on to borrowings from Japanese due to it's international status. Couldn't this article benefit from a Spanish loanwords section? I know that not all Spanish vocabulary comes from Latin!
The box again
Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
IMO it is very POV against the nations not put in the opening box to just have Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Columbia in the opening, SqueakBox05:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
In the face of constant reverts froma single editor I have changed the names of the countries in the now small box. Don't revert, bring your issues here, but I woulsd advise you not to claim that big countries like Spain are more important than small countries like Honduras, as it is POV,
SqueakBox15:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Nobody ever said a country was more important than the other. The argument for which some countries (mainly Spain) should be in the abreviate list of states instead of others (at least the one I have) are the philological and cultural impacts the country has on the rest of the Spanish speaking countries and the world, through the Spanish language. Therefore, I would first select countries such as Colombia (literature, music, television) before some other that has not such an influece on the hole world. If the English language article found its balance, so can this. Mariano(t/c) 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Squeak, changed first and read later. I would either leave them ALL in or say something like:
What I think is we should keep it as it was before Al-Andalion changed it, but I agree a compromise mentioning just the regions or even something as vague as Spain and 2/3rds of Latin America would be an alternative I would go for. Selecting a few countries is bound to create ongoing problems which is why I brought the whole list to the box in the first place, SqueakBox19:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why there is a Spoken with section if it is followed by a Region one, which is clear enough. Perhaps in Spoken with we should keep just See geographic distribution below.Ejrrjs | What?22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I like Ejrrjs's suggestion, doesn't make much sense. But I like the changes... I love the changes, unfortuntately the infobox doesn't allow us to eliminate the line altogether.
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I've been doing some reading which includes excerpts of old documents about the time of the Conquest of Mexico and I'm seeing both systemtic and random differences to modern Spanish orthography. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia about anything but the current orthography. I would like to know if there were previous reforms, what those changed, or if Spanish orthography was unruly until recently. Any details greatly appreciated!
I don't know too much about this, but... The g~j change is maybe to be expected since the original sound was li (mulier); then I think it turned into a palatal fricative, and then into a velar fricative. With all this changes going, the orthography must have varied a lot. In fact the word sounds exactly the same with a g in this case... Mas and más are different things; mas is the same as pero ("but"), while más (from Latin magis) means "plus" or "more". The accent is there just to distinguish the two. As for i instead of y, I seem to recall the latter was fixed in orthography quite late; Catalan uses i. The letters v and b are used conventionally, since they sound exactly the same in Spanish, in all cases (no matter what any prescriptivist teacher says); in days prior to language academies and printed dictionaries, it's no wonder that people employed one or other indistinctly. The u and v thing goes back to Latin, which had only V for both the vowel /u/ and the semivowel /w/ (as well as I for both /i/ and /j/, and C for both /k/ and /g/). The x and j confusion is due to the fact that they used to represent two different sounds which later merged. For a while, people remembered where each one was supposed to be, but then their use became more arbitrary, and finally x was abolished (for that sound) except in a few names (like México and Oaxaca). Oaxaca should be written Huajaca, BTW (and México should be Méjico, which some people do write). I hope someone else sees this message and corrects the (very likely) mistakes of the previous explanation. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The phonology of Spanish has changed across centuries. The orthography has followed some of the changes. Besides the standard orthography has not taken root until the foundation of the RAE in the 18th century. Even later the RAE itself has made changes.
v=u. If you read the letter articles, the distinction is quite new as is distiguishing i and j.
á I have seen quite recently (19th or even 20th century).
ansí is an archaic form.
é is also archaic. It is still the standard before i- as in padre e hijo.
Many of the mentioned phonology still exists in the Ladino dialect of Spanish. A Ladino speaker would be able to read Old Spanish texts with much more precision than a normal speaker of Spanish because they retain the phonology used unitl 1492. Words like ansí, fijo, favlar, vafo, afogar, fumo, foja, formiga, fiel (hiel), filo (hilo), forca, muncho, ferir, feder, fazer, dezir, dixo, lexos, dexar, quexarse and páxaro among many others, are still used in Ladino today which is essentially still archaic Spanish. Error | ??10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Although "Spanish" is the word used to describe the allies of Mexico who helped to repulse invaders from the north colonizing Texas, the appropriate word should be "Hispanic" which indicates tribal culture of the Caribbean Sea region.
The constant mis-use of the term "Spanish" is irritating and self-defeating, as is the political use of the academic language discipline applied to Texas (U. S. A.) history and politics. It is more irritating than the constant defamation of the French after their landings on the Mexican coast, thousands of miles from home port in Europe. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have reworded the sentences about ch and ll to reflect the quote from the RAE in the Feb 2005 discussion in the archives. I'm new at this Wikipedia thing, and I'm still not fully satisfied with my edit, but I think it's clearer now. I'm still concerned about a couple of things. For example, the paragraph implies that vowels with accents are special letters that Spanish uses, but surely we think of those as accent marks used over the same Latin vowels, rather than as five additional vowels? I'd like to see this addressed. Maybe I'll do it myself when I get the courage.... BLT22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I notice that the text in this article says that it was 1990 that the RAE said to alphabetize ch and ll as separate, letters, but the main article on the writing system says it was 1994. Which is correct? 69.153.91.4023:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Castilian Spanish
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't like the use of that term throughout this article. The term is used often historically to discuss times when no language had yet been named spanish. And it is sometimes used to mean spanish, as opposed to other languages of the kingdom of spain in present day. But it is never used, except on wikipedia, to mean spanish from spain. I am changing it to something universally understood.
It is Castilian language as the expression "Spanish language" is completely wrong.
Spain has FOUR Spanish languages being Castilian the most spoken one.
It´s the same question as I speak "english" but I do not speak "british".
Spanish language is not only a bad definition, it´s offenssive and it´s also an ilegal expresion in Spain as it is written on the Constitution of Spain.
I would like Wikipedia to correct this unfortunate and discriminatory expresion to define Castillian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.34.170 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
In English, castellano is called Spanish. The term is politically problematic given the history of regional nationalism in Spain, but sources in English always say "Spanish" except, as stated above, when talking about Castilian in a historical setting. There's already an explanation in the article regarding the alternative names. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)11:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Influence of other languages on Castillian and other Spanish dialects?
Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Since studying Spanish years ago, this has been something that I've been curious about. To what degree are there Arabic influences/words in Castillian? And what about Africanisms or First World words in Spanish spoken in the Americas? I recall years ago asking my honors Spanish instructor about the origin of the extremely common expression "Ojalá." My teacher responded that it was simply an idiomatic expression with no particular meaning. It didn't take long for me to realize, after studying the 300(?)-year Moorish domination of Spain, that the phrase was simply "Oh, Allah!" with the gutteral stop metamorphosed to a "j" sound. (A no-brainer.) Presumably, there are other examples. I know English is rife with foreign-language importations. To what extent are these phenomena present in Castillian and other variations of Spanish? deeceevoice14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Reread my comments. I didn't say "ojalá" was a dialect. Clearly, it appears in Castillian, as well as in the Spanish spoken in the Americas. Thanks for the link, though. I skimmed the article and missed the in-line reference to it. (I looked instead for a similar link in the "see also" section.) deeceevoice16:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Joan Corominas accepts that ojalá comes from wa šā llâh, "and may God want!".
There are other etymologies like inshallah and ya sa llah
Deecevee I would say Anglicanisms are as common in Spanish as French words are in English. Here in Honduras okay is very popular but it also has a quality of a greeting, especially at the end of a conversation. Cheque (Che-ke) is another popular word taken from the English which means yes we agree, say when a shopping transaction is completed. Chance, pronounced in Spanish, is another very popular Central American import. There may be a lot more of this in CA and Mexico than in South or Caribbean America because the US influence is stronger here, but I saw it indifferent forms in Spain as
well, SqueakBox02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
There are many Native American words in everyday Spanish dialects all over Latin America, but they vary wide not only from Country to Country, but even between regions. For instance Pop-corn (which Indians already prepared before the arrival of the Europeans) is in Standard SpanishPalomitas de maiz, whereas in Buenos Aires (and the southern half of Argentina) we use the (I think Mapuche) word Pochoclo; 300 kilometres away, in Rosario, Santa Fe Province, the Guaraní word Pororó is used. I'm not sure what are you exactly searching for, but if you dig into dialects (such as Lunfardo), you will find a ton of borrowed idiomatic expresions. Mariano(t/c) 09:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The misleading colour of Brazil
Latest comment: 19 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
File:Spanish Speaking Map.PNGImage 1, put in the article by User:XGustaX. Brazil neutralised by Marco Neves. Only on wiki english.Image 2, by user:Yug, on commons, I tryed to neutralised the former map. Is it good ? please make a clear summary, then I can improve this map."Mundohispano.png", this one is use on the spanish Wikipedia article
The colour of Brazil in this map is completely misleading. It has the same colour as the U.S., meaning something like there is a considerable percentage of the population speaking the language. According to the figures, there are 31 million Spanish-speaking Americans. But how many Brazilians do actually speak Spanish? Do you have any figures on this? So, why show Brazil as a partially Spanish-speaking nation?
Maybe the reason behind this is the following reference in the article «Geographic distribution»: "On July 07, 2005, the National Congress of Brazil gave final approval to a bill that makes Spanish a second language in the country’s public and private primary schools". The fact is that this bill simply makes compulsory for the public schools to offer Spanish as one of the possible options for foreign languages, not just English, as it used to be. However, many of my Brazilian friends say this is far from being possible in a near future, as the quantity of teachers to be trained in Spanish is huge.
Don't be ridiculous, both Brazil and the US have a huge amount of spanish speaking population. Especially in the south (Both Brazil's south and the US's south). I myself have been to Parana, Minas Gerais, Iguacu, RJ, SP, Bahia and other areas where I found a lot of spanish speaking people. I have no official figures, but Brazil is deservedly in that category. I'm sure whoever made the map has the figures handy. Sebastian KesselTalk16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Before there was no obligatory foreign language in Brazil's education system. Now all high schools must offer Spanish to their pupils, and that's the only foreign language they must offer. Nowadays Spanish is more studied than English in some universities, and 80% pupils prefer Spanish to English; and that with the lei do espanhol (law of Spanish) not being implemented yet. “Escolas do Brasil vao ter espanhol obrigatório” http://www.esbam.com.br/noticias.php?idNoticia=28
Sebastian, I think you (as well as the author of this map) is taking the knowledge of Spanish as a foreign language for speaking it as a mother tongue. That's why I asked for figures of the supposed Spanish-speaking community in Brazil.
There are presently 298 million people in the U.S., 31 million of them having Spanish as their first language, i.e. about 10.4% of the total. The population of Brazil is 186 million. So, you should have something like 19 million Brazilian with Spanish as their mother language! There is no such thing! There is absolutely no similarity between the Brazilian situation and the American one.
You say you found "a lot of spanish speaking people" all over Brazil, from Paraná to Bahia. Were they speaking Spanish among themselves, or just being polite and trying to talk to you in your own language? Apart from any printed material produced for Argentinean tourists, did you see any local newspapers or magazines written completely or partially in Spanish? Did you listen to any local radio broadcast in Spanish? Is there a local TV channel in Spanish? Or, at least, some TV programmes, shows or novellas in Spanish? With the exception of possible projects promoting Spanish as a foreign language, do you know any Brazilian website or discussion group where that "Spanish-speaking community" can get information, meet and discus "in their own language" (i.e. Spanish)? Do you know any Brazilian Spanish-speaking singer, actor, writer, or politician? Is there any "Brazilian Academy for the Spanish Language", like you have in any Spanish-speaking nation, including the U.S. or the Philippines? Do you know any political party, association or movement that represents the local Spanish community?
So, how do you explain the silence of the "huge amount of spanish speaking population" that you so peremptorily state exists in Brazil? The answer is a simple one: There is no Spanish speaking community in Brazil. What happens in Brazil is the same that happens in Portugal, for that matter, and is clearly stated in the article about Brazil in the English language Wikipedia: "Spanish is understood in various degrees by most people, since it is very close to Portuguese". People understand and, to a certain degree, can speak Spanish because it is, in many ways, similar to Portuguese. But that's all. --82.102.11.14800:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Manuel de SousaReply
French Manuel, I agree with you that the situation of Spanish in Brazil and the United States is very different. However, I think you are being confused by the map, which is not comparing the US with Brazil, but only indicating where (with light green color) Spanish is commonly spoken as a second-language. This situation is similar to French in Western Canada, where there aren't much of clusters (green dots) of French speakers and more of usage as a second language (light blue). --Vizcarra00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Manuel about the Brazilian relationship to Spanish being totally different to the US relationship to Spanish, which is more like the British relationship to Urdu, SqueakBox01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Vizcarra, unlike Canada, Brazil is not a bilingual nation. I don't agree with your comments, because this would lead us to surprising results. Let me explain: Everybody agrees now (I hope!) that there are no Brazilians with Spanish as their mother tongue. They don't speak at home, they don't use it among themselves, they just speak it (with more or less fluency) as a foreign language. This is what you mean as a "second-language", right? That's why you use the light green colour on Brazil, right? OK.
But, considering this as a good method, you should also colour in light green Portugal and all Portuguese-speaking nations, because -- due to the similarity between the two languages -- we all can (better or worse) understand Spanish. Right?
Following this same logic, all Spanish-speaking nations should have a similar light colour in the map of the Portuguese-speaking nations, because Portuguese is as similar to Spanish, as Spanish is to Portuguese. Don't you agree?
Still remaining faithful to that very same principle: when we're considering the English language, all countries in the world should be painted in a similar light colour, as English is taught in nearly every school in virtually every nation. So, it is either the first or the second language of almost every human being, right?
No, the issue is not that Spanish and Portuguese are similar, but rather the number of people who speak Spanish as a second language in a region. Speaking English as a second language is not common in Mexico, most people in Mexico are unable to hold conversations in English, only in border towns and tourist areas are people able to do so. I am not sure about the penetration of Portuguese in Latin America in general, but in Mexico is negligible, so at least Mexico would not be colored in light green in the Portuguese language map. --Vizcarra20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes but Mexicans could probably pick up Portuguese a lot more quickly than they could English. To the untrained Spanish and Portuguese ear English sounds unintelligible (as do these 2 languages to the untrained English ear) whereas all speakers of those languages can easily pick up a little bit of the other language without too much effort because of their similarity in pronunciation, grammar and words, SqueakBox20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Vizcarra, don't you understand that Brazilians happen to be somehow fluent in Spanish, for the only reason that there is a strong familiarity between the two Iberian languages? A comparable phenomenon also occurs, at least, in neighbouring countries like Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina. This is generally called "portunhol" or "portuñol", a mixture of both languages.
As I already said, Brazil is not a bilingual nation (not "de iure" and not "de facto") and there is no proper Spanish-speaking minority in the country. Brazil happens to be surrounded by seven Spanish-speaking nations, with whom it has strong economic relations. But you can't say that Brazil is a Portuguese-speaking "island" in a Spanish "ocean". Brazil is huge. It is the largest and most populous country in Latin America (it is even larger than the U.S, if you exclude Alaska!). The Brazilians make up 51% of the South America population. So, it's not easy to tell who's the "island" and who's the "ocean"?
I think the conception of the map we have been discussing purely reflects the U.S. vision of Latin America. As it is common sense in the U.S. to think that Spanish is the only language spoken south of the Rio Grande, it is hard to understand Brazil, cause this country doesn't fit properly in that stereotype. So, the way out of this dilemma is a simple one: if Brazilians don't speak Spanish as their first language, they must speak it as a second language. Otherwise, how could they survive over there!? And, as they are now teaching Spanish in public schools, in a 20 years time (to say the most), all Brazilians will be just speaking Spanish, and this oddity will be over!
My dear friends, I said before, and I say it again: please separate fact from fiction. As Wikipedia consider itself to a be an encyclopaedia, please make every effort to have only reliable information posted in these pages. To catalogue Brazil as a Spanish-speaking nation (even as a second language) is as incorrect as it would be to consider the Netherlands or Sweden as English-speaking nations, because "everybody" speaks English over there! --82.102.42.7023:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Manuel de SousaReply
I do understand why Brazilians are somehow fluent in Spanish, because that is one of the reasons why I am somehow fluent in Portuguese as well, because they are similar. In fact that is why I am very fluent in Italian, because Italian and Spanish aver very similar. However, the map does not discriminate on the reasons why Spanish is spoken as a second language, just that it is. And yes, Brazil is huge, it is the fifth largest country in the world, and it is not bilingual. And portunhol is also spoken in southern Brazil, in regions close to Uruguay. I, in fact, know a person who is Brazilian and speaks more Spanish than Portuguese. The fact that there are many second-language speakers of Spanish is good enough reason to color Brazil in light-color green. No matter how big Brazil is. It is not based on US-centric assumptions. I know Latin America, I speak Spanish, and I speak much Portuguese. You should not take offense on a map which is not saying much other than there is a significant amount of second-language speakers of Spanish in Brazil. --Vizcarra00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Manuel. Statistically the number of Spanish anmd Portuguese speakers in South America are the same, and Portuguese is just as important to these Spanish speaking countries as vice-versa and to characterise Brazil in this way (ie as a Spanish-speaking nation) is false. Its obvios to me why Portuguese speakers might take offence, and US centrism is a problem trhoughout the encyclopedia, SqueakBox00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The map does not characterize Brazil as a Spanish-speaking nation, if it was it would be dark green, not light green. Do you have the statistics of Spanish and Portuguese people in South America? --Vizcarra00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Vizcarra, I'm not offended by the map (I don't get offended easily!). I'm just trying to convince you to correct it, because it is wrong. I'm just giving my contribution to the accuracy of the English-language Wikipedia.
You have Spanish as your mother language and, because of that, you have a regular command over the Portuguese language. So, this road has two ways, after all! If there are Brazilians that can speak Spanish, because of the Portuguese language; there must also be many Argentineans, Uruguayans, Paraguayans, etc. that can speak Portuguese, thanks to their knowledge of the Spanish language.
And considering the size, population, industrial development of Brazil (when compared to its Spanish-speaking neighbours), it's much more likely that there are Argentineans, Uruguayans, Paraguayans, etc. speaking Portuguese (even if you happen not to know one of them, yourself), than Brazilians speaking Spanish. Doesn't this seam logical to you?
In my opinion, the idea that Brazil is in the process of becoming a Spanish-speaking nation is really a US-centric assumption. It is a myth, that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
What makes you say that "there is a significant amount of second-language speakers of Spanish in Brazil"? How many are they, after all? 100 million? 50 million? 20 million? Or just a few thousands speaking "portunhol" close to the border?
Why don't you say that there is a significant amount of second-language speakers of Portuguese in, say, Uruguay? In the article on the Portuguese language in the Spanish Wikipedia, you can find: "Se habla también de forma minoritaria en las zonas fronterizas de Uruguay, Argentina, Bolivia y Paraguay, debido a la migración de brasileños en su mayor parte dedicados al comercio."
You know, as well as Spanish is now taught in Brazilian schools there are also many people from neighbouring Spanish-speaking countries enrolling in courses of Portuguese. See: "El portugués, un idioma de moda".
Again, in the Spanish Wikipedia, in article on the Spanish language there is a map of the "Mundo Hispano" where you can find the Philippines and "Los Estados Unidos", but no reference is made to Brazil.
I'm not "insisting". I'm discussing, and we keep talking about it because your arguments are not convincing enough, perhaps because you are getting off the subject by comparing the superiority of population and the importance of Brazil as a country. The map does not deal with that. It only deals with areas where Spanish is spoken as a first language (dark green) and as a second language (light green). I have a command of the Portuguese language because I studied it in school (in the US), not because I speak Spanish. In fact, I found Italian to be easier to learn than Portuguese. Why don't I say that there is a significant amount of second-language speakers of Portuguese in, say, Uruguay? Because we are talking about the Spanish language. This is not a competition of who wins, the Spanish language and the Portuguese language. --Vizcarra20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Dear Vizcarra, you're right, this is far from a competition. But, please, answer my questions below. Spanish is taught as a foreign language in Brazil (just like English). If we would signal this in this map, we would have to signal almost every country in the world in a similar map regarding English, don't you think? If the problem is Spanish is becoming a mandatory subject in school, then Denmark and Portugal (and many more countries) would have to be included (in a light shade) in any map regarding English, since English is mandatory there. Really, Spanish has no different status in Brazil from, say, English. Spanish is just an important foreign language, taught to an increasing number of students. Best regards, Marco Neves21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
While I am not convinced that there are more speakers from Spanish speaking South Americans etc speaking Portuguese than Brazilians speaking Spanish (I woulsd conclude an identical phenomena taking place) I do again agree with Manuel. The same certainly occurs in Spain where most people in Galicia can speak Portuguese because it is so close to Gallego, and I have known people who grew up near Salamanca who spoke some Portuguese but no other foreign language (not educated people), basically because they had had exposure and it is very easy. As an English speak it took me years to master reading Spanish, and then weeks to master reading Portuguese, and I am sure if I had started with Portuguese it would have been the same. I tend to agree that this a US centrede approach (and I think Vizcarra and I have had this US centrism debate elsewhere with Afro-Latin American etc), and I for one, believing this is an international and not a US encyclopedia, feel it is important not to reflect a US centred approach to wikipedia. So I support Manuel in wanting Brazil grey rather than green. I don't think it is a million miles from the Is the US a Spanish speaking country below, SqueakBox14:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Just a question: in Portugal (where I come from) aprox. 40% of people have learnt English (like in many other European countries). Should we be included in a light green colour (or something like that) in any map describing English-speaking countries? Marco Neves18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Just for the record: I think Spanish in U.S. is a very different case, since in the U.S. there is a sizable non-immigrant community that speaks Spanish as a 1st language (not learnt in school), unlike in Brazil, where virtually no one learns Spanish at home. Furthermore, there is one state in U.S. that has Spanish as an official language (New Mexico). Light green is more than appropriate for U.S., but completely misleading for Brazil. Marco Neves18:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Since someone reverted the map to include Brazil again, I will have to clarify my point.
1. From this year on, English is mandatory to all Portuguese elementary school students. Furthermore, 40% of Portuguese speak English as a 2nd language. Does that make Portuguese a suitable candidate for any ligh-shade colouring in a map stating English-language countries? I think that is not so. So, why is Brazil different?
2. The situation in Brazil is the same as in surrounding countries: they are learning Spanish, as their neighbours are learning Portuguese. So, would you agree if Argentina were presented as a Portuguese-speaking country (albeit in a light shade tone) in any map?
3. There is no Spanish-speaking community in Brazil (there is a German-speaking one, though). There is no point in treating Brazil as a Spanish-speaking country. If the similarity between both languages is at stake, then Portugal must be included altogether. Don't you agree?
In a nutshell: Brazil has no place in this map. In Spanish Wikipedia, no one presents Brazil as remotely Spanish-speaking. Try ask any Brazilian if they agree with this. Best regards, Marco Neves05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
What strange question this is! Those (I think it is only one person) trying to include Brazil in the map should first answer the questions I put above. Of course they can't, since their position is unsustainable by any person that knows something about Brazil. They are reading CIA fact book as if it were the Truth (disregarding the fact that it also says Brazil speaks French and English!! What a wonderful many-tongued country! A new Switzerland!). It is obvious: Brazilians speak Portuguese (apart from very little communities, as in any other country) but Brazilians learn English, Spanish and French at school (that does not make Brazil an English-, French- or Spanish-speaking country). What is the question, here? Marco Neves21:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
USA and the Spanish language
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latin America has been for decades the back yard of the United States, and many Americans think that it will always be that way, but it won't. Many Hispanic American countries have a great capacity of growing and Brazil has decided to lead them into the future. Brazil has just a handicap to get that: Spanish is not spoken there; yet. In July 2005 Brazilian parliament established Spanish as a subject which all high schools in the country had to offer to their pupils. Due to the huge interest (necessity) of Brazilians in learning Spanish, and to the Spanish-Portuguese resembling, Brazil is going to be a bilingual Portuguese-Spanish country in 20 years. This will let Brazil lead the rest of Latin American countries in a natural way.
Meanwhile in the USA Spanish is ignored in primary and secondary education, in spite of being the second most important language in the world (it’s said to be the international language, with English, in the future). Will USA be so short sighted as not to implement a national plan to establish Spanish as a compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools so that Americans of tomorrow be able to speak it? Will USA lose on its influence over Hispanic countries?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.187.45 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, because more and more americans are of hispanic ancestry I don't think it will be ignored forever. But, currently the political elite in the USA is of white protestant heritage. It will change one day, but nobody knows how long it will take. --Lucius197608:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Spanish, like English, is not an official language of the USA, but it is a Spanish speaking country.
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Why is Brazil colored green and not Canada? The US is a Spanish speaking country and should be the same color as the other countries in Latin America. If you go to Google News and type in 'Spanish language' you will get an idea on the vast presence of Castilian in the US.
Zedkoman15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
As someone who speaks Spanish almost fluently as a second-language, I'm well aware that Spanish is widespread in the US. However, it is misleading to say that the U.S. is a "Spanish-speaking country", as it implies that Spanish is our primary or official language. The US as a whole has no official language, and although Spanish has been given what would be considered co-official status in some areas, it is still far more accurate to say that the US is a country where spanish is spoken. I think this would be a compromise in wording that would please both sides of this debate. ThePedanticPrick17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely disagree. We have had this argument extensively alrerady, (see above). The US is an English speaking country, for the reasons I outlined above (education and judiciary are in English, etc) and I would strongly oppose any attempt to equate the US with Sp LatAm countries on the basis that the Spanish language presence in the US is not in any way comparable to how Spanish is used in almost two thirds of Latin America, where it is in fact comparable to the way English is used in the US, or the way Portuguese is used in Brazil. Describing the US as a Spanish speaking country is about as accurate as describing the UK as an Urdu speaking country. Zedkoman, please read the earlier discussions, SqueakBox15:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
You and Claire have had a robust exchange of ideas and thoughts. Comparing the UK and the US is like comparing apples and oranges. One is not identical to the other. 12% percent of US resident have Spanish as their native language. Spanish has a historical presence in current US territory that predates the existance of English. You should read this PBS article by Phillip Carter of North Carolina State University. http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/spanglish/usa/ Puerto Rico is United States territory and the language of the courts and of the schools is Spanish. In New York there is bilingual education where one could take all of their high school subjects in either English or SPanish. The regents exams in NYS are offered in both English and Spanish. This is one example of US nationwide phenomena where Spanish is utilized. Their are countless periodicals, magazines, radio and TV stations to serve the Spanish speaking population. There is even a Spanish speaking station in Bangor, Maine! I of course am not mentioning the Spanish speakers in Louisiana and the southwest of the US that have spoken Spanish since the first European exploration of that part of the American continent several centuries ago. The Urdu speakers in the UK are not equivalent to people speaking a European language like Spanish in the American continent for half a millenium. Urdu is a phenomena of the post WW2 immigration of South Asians to the UK. One can however state that Turkey is a Kurdish speaking country, Finland is a SWEDISH speaking country (even though 5% of Finns are native speakers), or that Spain is a Catalan speaking country. That might get the majority riled up, but it is true. But this article isn't about politics, it is about Spanish and its use in the world. Claire showed statistics from the Census Bureau that prove everything that I am saying in regards to the sheer number of US American Spanish speakers. Zedkoman19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think Claire's arguments failed to gain any kind of a consensus then, and while any regional situation in the world is different from any other to characterises say the United Kingdom as a Welsh speaking nation or the US as an Spanish speaking nation is not widely considered to be the truth, and indeed will make most people think what? and not really trust wikipedia so much, SqueakBox20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid that an encyclopaedia should not cater to the whims of people...there is an old saying in Spanish regarding flies, their taste on food and the truth that I think could apply here :-) User:Ejrrjs says What?21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Where Spanish is spoken
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
In the info box "Spanish (español, castellano)" it is said: "Spoken in: Most of South and Central America; Mexico and substantial minorities in other parts of North America and the Caribbean; the Iberian Peninsula; and enclaves and immigrant groups on all continents"
I don't think this is precise in two important points:
"Most of South America" - As Brazil occupies almost half the territory of South America and Brazilians makeup a bit more than half of all South Americans, instead of "Most of South and Central America", it should be something like "Half of South America and most of Central America..."
"the Iberian Peninsula" - The territory of the Iberian Peninsula is occupied by four politically independent entities: Andorra, Gibraltar, Portugal and Spain. Andorra's official language is Catalan; Gibraltar's official language is English; Portugal's language is Portuguese; Spanish is the official language in Spain, but other regional languages are also co-official there: Basque, Catalan/Valencian and Galician. So, instead of saying "the Iberian Peninsula" as one place where Spanish is spoken, it should be better if you simply say "Spain". In spite of occupying 4/5 of the peninsula, Iberia is not exactly the same as Spain. Moreover, the Balearic and Canary islands are also part of Spain, but not of the Iberian Peninsula.
I agree with point 2, however, my two cents on point 1 is that "most", in this context, does not necessarily refer to geographical area or population. When you have 15-20 countries on a continent and the vast majority of these countries speak Spanish, it is natural to say that spanish is spoken in most of that continent. I'd be okay with explaining in detail the geographic distribution and population figures for spanish in South America, but simply removing the word "most" on the grounds you suggest seems overly pedantic. ThePedanticPrick17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
So, the text I propose is: "Spoken in: Half of South America; most of Central America; Mexico and substantial minorities in other parts of North America and the Caribbean; Spain; and enclaves and immigrant groups on all continents" --82.102.11.10623:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Manuel de SousaReply
Perhaps you could explain your grounds for doing so? If I'm not mistaken, Belize is the only country in Central America where spanish is not the official language. ThePedanticPrick17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
It seems like people are trying to insert their own POV and play down the influence of Spanish in the Americas. Why not just say most of Latin America? Most of the Americas? Spanish is the most spoken language in the w hemisphere. In Europe, although Spanish is only official in Spain, it is widely spoken in Andorra and Gibraltar as a second language although it does not have official status. To say most of the Iberian peninsula is better because it is factual. Is there mention of Northern Africa? Zedkoman22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
The whole thing has been invented to avoid saying that Spanish is widely spoken in the United States. It's done for exactly the reason you suggest. Grace Note08:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Equatorial Guinea should be dark green
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Replacement is not the best word to use there. /θ/ and /s/ developed parallel to one another from different historical sources in an earlier stage of the language. Dave06:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
As spoken in.... (don't mention the States!)
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
You know, there are plenty of comical sights on Wikipedia, many of them driven by POV pushing, but the contorted use of regions rather than countries to avoid noting that Spanish is spoken by many citizens of the United States is among the most hilarious. Well, if you insist on doing that, you cannot say Spain, but must parallel region for region. The same goes for Mexico. This is, of course, ridiculous, but shrug that's the way it goes. Grace Note08:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely, and the reason is your attempts to mislead by implyingh the States is a spanish speaking country. I see you are now also misleadingly stating Spanish is spoke uin some of Europe. In Frnace? Poland? England? Or where exactly. Only in Spain and the tiny Gib and Andorra do they speak it so please stop misleading people. Are you al;so claimuing it is not spoken in Mexico. So what exactly? The US is a Spanish speaking country and Mexico isn't? SqueakBox15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
LOL. Man, one of these days you're going to have to just face up to the fact that the US ranks fourth or so in the list of Spanish-speaking countries. Why not just return the box to the list of countries, with the US in its correct place? People won't stop speaking Spanish in the States just because you fiddle with the Wikipedia article, you know. Grace Note05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
LOL indeed. It isn't even a Spanish speaking country. They speak this language called English there. Have you ever actuially been to a Spanish speaking country? which is one where Spanish is the dominant language. If we mislead our readers we just make wikipedia into a laughing stock as everyone knows the US is an English speaking country, SqueakBox04:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Where are you from Squeakbox? I have recently made a trip from Miami to Los Angeles, crossing the country from East to West by car and then back, and in addition to the place names, so many of them in Spanish (In New Mexico even the road signs are in Spanish), you could just speak Spanish all the they down to California without having to use any English at all if you did not want to.
Alright, there's a lot of absurdity that's gone into this rehashed [ad nauseum] subject (although the last assertion there really takes the absurdity cake)... Essentially, however, the problem is US hypernationalists pushing the POV that since Spanish isn't the foremost language of the US, that the US shouldn't be mentioned, opposed by a group of hyperproud hispanoparlantes pushing the POV that since Spanish is the 2nd most widely-spoken language in the US (which makes them very proud), that the US must be mentioned. My POV is that both camps are wrong to use the arguments they're using...what should be being discussed is the affect this argument is having on the article. Nobody, AFAIK, is arguing to exclude the US from the discussion of the geographical distribution of Spanish [speakers] later on in the article. So, what's the issue? "We disagree about the infobox." The fact of the matter is that this discussion is never going to go anywhere. Neither side will convince the other. We need, instead, to come up with an agreement about the parameters that will be used in order to determine what will and will not be included in the infobox. I am, of course, compelled to agree with Grace Note's recommendation (which, as it happens, is identical to what I recommended here 9 months ago already). Tomertalk03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Castellano vs. Español
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mexico and maybe parts of central america are the only places in the whole spanish speaking world that refer to their language as Español. Almost all of Spanish speaking countries refer to Spanish as Castellano. In Spain it is considered offensive in many places (Basque Country, Catalonia, etc.) to refer to the language as Español.
Spoken in Israel and Republic of Turkey by jews acording with the Spanish Wikipedia:
El número de hablantes de judeoespañol ronda hoy los 150.000. La mayor parte de ellos, unos 100.000, en Israel, en su inmensa mayoría personas mayores nacidas fuera del país, cuyos hijos y nietos ya no hablan judeoespañol. En Israel se mantiene una revista en judeoespañol, Aki Yerushalayim ("aquí Jerusalén") y una emisión semanal de radio en la emisora Kol Israel. Otros medios de comunicación en ladino han ido desapareciendo a medida que menguaba el número de hablantes. Las comunidades sefardíes más numerosas fuera de Israel están en Turquía, donde hay unos 15.000 hablantes. El problema al que se enfrenta el ladino, aparte del escaso número de hablantes, es la dispersión de los mismos, es decir, el hecho de que existan pocos grupos de hablantes numéricamente importantes.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article has some problems. The claims in the introduction are notably problematic as they do not include any references. It seems clear that various studies have come up with different statistics, so its good to mention that, but if you're going to state any particular number, at least drop a reference. And "Some assert" are coward words.
Anyways, I'd like to propose fixing up the intro by including some references and replace the "second most important language" bit with a more general "is a very important language" Can someone can cite a reference that actually says "second most important language"? Even if someone can come up with a reference, it seems that something like ranking the importance of a language is probably inherently POV and somewhat meaningless.
Also, I think coloring New Mexico dark green is incorrect. According to Spanish in the United States, Spanish is not the most widely spoken language there.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've just reverted a change in the part of the article describing the sounds of written g. It turns out that in English, "hard g" means g as in get (/g/) while "soft g" means g as in gin (/dʒ/). In Spanish, most people don't use this terminology but would probably consider the fricative g as in gema (/x/) "hard", in the sense of "harsh". What do we do? I'd prefer eradicating the common but confusing "hard/soft" distinction and speak properly of fricative and plosive sounds. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Classification and related laguages
The article seems to put French and Italian at the same level in terms of similarities with Spanish and that is a big mistake. In fact, Italian is so close to Spanish or vice versa that speakers of both languages can communicate relatively well with a little of good will, which is not the case with French. Actually, Spanish is closer to Portuguese in terms of vocabulary and grammar, but much closer to Italian in terms of pronunciation. So, I suggest a change to that.
