Talk:Galician–Asturian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transitional nature[edit]

Editor Candalín has repeatedly deleted this sentence from the heading:

and which have transitional characteristics between the Galician and Asturian linguistic varieties.

I think that not mentioning that key feature of Eonavian is so misleading, it would make the whole page non-neutral and close to Disinformation. Editor Candalín fails to explain what's wrong with the sentence. Unless I can find out what's the problem with it, I'll keep reverting his or her deletion. --Jotamar (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Galician-Portuguese origin of eonavian, evidenced in the examination of ancient documents of the monastery of Oscos, (read the documents of the monastery), the doubts that may arise is the Asturian language subsequent influence.
From these facts, among philologists, there are four positions:
a) - Galician Theory. Those who consider this variant of Galician (Fernández Rei, Xan Babarro, Braña Fernandez, Carlos Aenelle, etc. Frías Conde lesser extent).Is the position of the academy of Galician Language
b) -Asturian Theory. Those who consider that it is a Galician-Portuguese, (no galician) language with greater influence of asturian (XL García Arias ex-president of ALLA)
c) - Mixed Theory. Those who consider dialect of Galician-Portuguese, (no galician), with some characteristics of Asturian language (XM Suárez Fernández, Fernández Vior, García García, etc.). Is the position of the academy of asturian language (alla) suport today.
d) - Autonomy Theory. The eonavian is a dialect of Galician-portuguese language spoken in the middle Edge in the NW of iberian peninsula, diferent of Galician of portuguese languages.
His commentary suffers from the following defects:
1. No one argues that the Eonavian is a language with mixed characteristics. («Spanglish» is a language with mixed characteristics, a language that is documented from nine hundred years ago, never can be, because is obvious, then not exist the Asturian neither Galician.
2. Your comment is tendentious because it is positioned for the second position b) radical position, in my opinion...
3. Part of a statement of principle. It is best that each draw their own conclusions, in view of the texts.
Moreover, the English wikipedia from the beginning adopted a different position. See earlier versions of this page, that support a mixed position, less radical:
"This set of dialects was traditionally included by linguists as Galician-Portuguese or Galician, with some characteristics of Asturian language".
I believe that the statement should be clarified o deleted
"..and which have transitional characteristics between the Galician and Asturian linguistic varieties".

--Candalín (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK, now I see what we are dealing with: Philology. I must admit I don't know much about philology, though I've always suspected that it is simply another name for pre-scientific linguistics. But I do know a bit about linguistics...
What you are using here is the tree model. I think that you should read this page: Classification of Romance languages. It basically states that the tree model is of little use in dialect continuum areas, and that was exactly what I was trying to make clear with my little sentence.
In case you don't trust that Wikipedia page, check out what a well-known historical linguist, Ralph Penny, has to say: Not only is the tree model inadequate to express the relationships between diatopically related varieties, but it may seriously distort the diachronic and synchronic study of language. Some would argue that this model works well within Indo-European linguistics, where the varieties under consideration (all written and therefore partially or fully standardized) are usually well separated in space and time and where the intervening varieties have all vanished without trace, removing any possibility of viewing the Indo-European family as a continuum. However, where the object of study is a series of now-existing varieties or a range of closely related varieties from the past, the tree model is open to a number of grave objections. ("Variation and Change in Spanish", point 2.5.1)
So you have written 90% of the article based on the tree model, and I have written 1% of it based on an alternative model. But you can't stand even that 1%, and that's when I must say that not all knowledge and not all sources are the same. There is obsolete knowledge and up-to-date knowledge, and I'm probably having too much respect for completely outdated sources, typical of Spanish scholars who learn an outdated and antiquated version of linguistics at the University.
Enough for now. Tell me what you think of all this. --Jotamar (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candalín notuit:

Very interesting, but the question is, if you don't know anyhing of Eonavian language, why suport this asertion that isn't offering philological information and only contains a political proclamation.
For the asturian people of eonavian region like me, the eonavian language is part of our cultural heritage so is esential by know how arised the romance languages in Asturias. Talking about whether it looks more to Asturian or Galician is irrelevant for us.
On the other hand this statement is offensive. If I would write in the page of catalonian language, «catalonian language is transitional language between spanish and french», everybody, in catalonia, would reproach my behavior, it is reasonable. For me is exactly the same. When you suport that statement, is like if someone would paint grafities in your town monuments, pure vandalism. I beg one respect for eonavian people.
In respect, of the question linguistic that you propose, I refer an other pages of wikipedia, only I will say you, that is obvious that diacronic or sincronic criterial aren't absolute, nothing it is in this world, but I know, there isn't other methods for philologic study of the languages. Anyway, you use concepts of XXI century, like galician or asturian, that are later when the time in that eonavian language is dissociated respect the languages of his enviroment, in this case galician-portuguese language. This time, when the people lost intengibility of the languages enviroment, is esential to distinguish the substrate and superstrate of language. My opinion, about the linguistic question of eonavian that you propose, you can consult it on this sites:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eonaviego#Sustrato_ling.C3.BC.C3.ADstico
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eonaviego#Superestrato_ling.C3.BC.C3.ADstico

Candalín (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my sentence isn't any political proclamation, in fact it is exactly the opposite, my sentence is based on the current state of Linguistics. In my opinion, one of the main achievements of modern Linguistics has been to get rid of all the ideological conditioning that was typical of pre-scientific Linguistics, a.k.a. Philology.
Secondly, being a speaker of Eonavian might give you first-hand information about some aspects of the language, but not about its history or classification.
Third, the tree model states that each single linguistic variety has one single origin, and that is exactly what we now know that is not true. So asking what is the true origin of Eonavian is by now an irrelevant question. Penny explains it very well but to show it I would have to copy here a too long quote.
Fourth, I suspect you still don't understand the meaning of transitional. In the Western Romance continuum, Catalan is transitional between Aragonese and Occitan. Spanish (that is, the sum of the Spanish vernaculars) is transitional between Asturian and Aragonese; and in the past it was between those and the Mozarabics. Transitional does not mean second division as you seem to think, in modern linguistics, every single linguistic variety, dialect or vernacular is first division.
And again, enough for now. --Jotamar (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candalín says:

Otherwise, you have a concept of very peculiar linquist, but still in the same, what do you know anything of eonavian language to support this statement? Where have you read it to reach those conclusions? Who are the current state of Linguistics, if you don't give any reference? Anyway, I doubt that you are interested seriously about aspects linguistics of eonavian, when you don't say anything about linguistics aspects, not a single comment to the phonetic, morphological or syntactic that are included on page by me, too. Your statement is only a value judgement that only is based in the infused knowledge. You've come to the conclusion about the identity of eonaviego, without even an appointment, or a reference, unknowing nothing about this question. That, if it is unscientific.
But if it is so clear that statement is scientific, keep that Catalonian is a language of transition between the Aragonese and Occitan, in the first paragraph on page of the Catalan language, let's see how long. Let's see if that attitude does not qualify as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.137.247 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you, please, that go back Revision as of 09:14, 28 April 2010 or clarify your statement, because is ofensive to Eonavian people, tendentious and violate NPOV policies.Candalín (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is unacceptable: go back or clarify your statement, because [it] is ofensive to Eonavian people, tendentious and violate[s] NPOV policies. This takes the mask off you, it shows that you are not interested in an alternative wording or clarification (I've already clarified the meaning in every possible manner), you are just interested in having complete control of your article and in ousting anyone ready to help with it. You have not discussed, even for a second, the possibility of changing the wording, only returning to your version is acceptable for you.
And about my ignorance of Eonavian, justy tell me this: would a speaker from Navia be able to communicate with one from Lluarca, each of them speaking his own vernacular? Or tell me this: is the vernacular from Navia as different from the one in Lluarca as the vernacular of Lisbon is from the one in Lluarca? Let's hope you are sincere here. --Jotamar (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candalin Says:

1. It is unacceptable that in the first sentence of an article is bet by a position in litigation, especially when this position may have political implications.
2. It is unacceptable, that, in this question so very controversy, you delete, without any arguments, another sentence, that peacefully was preserved for four years,
3. But is also, sincerely this statement, out of context, can be ofensive, and it should be clarifity. Repeat the same, figure this statement in first sentence on any page of anyother language and let's see what happens.


I explain me.

The people in Eo-Navia suffer a double pressure policy, on one side of anexionism galician and on the other is affected by the process the reconstruction of Asturian Language, (while that in 1975 the asturian was almost a dead language, the eonavian always hold on. Being very small our region, even today is estimated that there are 45.000 native speakers eonavian against 100.000 native asturian speakers in all asturias country). These two process are hurting to the scientific contents. If you read the asturian and Galician wiki and you contrast both versions, would understand this. In the asturian wiki is repeated exactly your afirmation while that in galician page, directly refuse the consideration of language, is only Galician language of Asturias. However, it isn't right. I think, that the correct thing would be to say: in this question there is this controversy, somebody think this is so and others think another thing, without bet by any position. Although still more correct, for me and, perhaps for most people eonavian, would be to omit all that controversy, because provides more political than linguistic contents.
I'm intervening in asturian wiki, in spanish wiki and galician wiki in every ussues of my region. In this time, my intention has been to amend political contens always with agreement with the masters. I've never had problems with it, and sincerely, I think, that not so bad clear up these questions so sensitive for many people. But, if you want hold your aseveration, being so controversy the question, the correct thing should be to open an epigraph and explain that position, (the distinction between philologic and linguistic aspects that you refer, with examples and references of eonavian language books) and not let an opinion of value in the head of the article as if it wouldn't have other. That's the correct deontologically, and of course, I encourage you to do so, would be very interesting your input.Candalín (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is something very strange with your last comments: It is unacceptable, that, in this question so very controvers[ial], you delete, without any arguments, another sentence. The only thing I've ever deleted from this page is this: Category:Spanish variants of Spain. Is this what you meant?? Though after a second reading of the page, certainly more things should be changed.
A key trouble with you is that you don't seem to understand that the Neogrammarian school is not the current state of the art in linguistics, to say it politely. If Eonavian is comprehensible to people in the neighbouring areas to the east, in Asturias (and I think it is), and also it is comprehensible to people in the neighbouring areas to the west, in Galicia (and I think it is), then the transitional nature of this linguistic area is not a theory, it's a fact. This is not incompatible with including theses varieties as part of Galician (which is what most people do, if I'm not wrong), part of Asturian or even a language of its own; neither of this 3 positions is supported by modern linguistics, because in a dialect continuum, as the one widely acknowledged to exist between Portugal, Belgium and Sicily, any division of language areas is (necessarily) at least partially arbitrary. Please tell me if you understand this reasoning, or not. If you don't, we have a serious problem here. --Jotamar (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candalín says
In first I said you, that it isn't necessary so. Me, for example, was living in La Rivera region, (Valencia) two years, I didn't understand any words when the people spoken me speed, but I understand always perfectly tv Valencià or tv Catalonia. The reason of it, is what most dificult for learn one language is the system vocalic, and tv usually use the sistem vocalic castillian. Otherwise, my wife is the Arribes Region in Spain, in a village so far 5 miles of Freixo d'Espada a Cinta (Portugal), anyone in her village understand any word in portuguese and vice versa. Neither, there are transitional languages in any village, despite there are villages in Spain where speak only portuguese.
Respect if the west asturian people understand Eonavian. The answer is NOT. To start, I may specify that in Luarca, everybody speak in spanish principally, my old father lives your infancy in Luarca (9-17), he always says me, that never heard to speak asturian in Luarca. In the villages near Luarca, the countrymen speak some asturian mixed with castilian. The people of these villages don`t understand in absolute the language of El Franco, Vegadeo or Castropol any word. That isn't a problem, so usually the people is bilingual and speak spanish when talk with the rest asturian people.
Respect if the eonavian people understand the galician people. Many people in Eonavia go to work to Ribadeo, Burela and Foz, in works where only speak Galician, they say me that no problem speak galician. Well, I don't see so clear, because they help using with many words in spanish. On another case that I Know, my fathers one time brought to the village one employee of Pontevedra, near of Portugal, that speaks "closed" Galician, and while we had sometimes problems for understand us with him, however the ancian people of the village understood almost all. The reason is the same, both used the same system vocalic, however we, that were living ordinary in castillian, we have lost the distinction of many sounds.
In this question depends the degree of implementation of Castilian, that is usually vehicular language. Hence the importance of historical study of the sources at other time in that Castilian didn't have so much influence.

Respect: «There is something very strange with your last comments...: » I'm sorry is a mistake this estatement is present now in page and sincerously think that's right, because this is the opinion of Menendez Pidal and Damaso Alonso, and I don't know if is the most qualified opinion, but I'm sure that is traditional opinion.

Emphasize my request for clarification of your estatment, sincerely this statement, out of context, can be ofensive, and it should be clarifity. Repeat the same, figure this statement in first sentence on any page of anyother language and let's see what happens. Candalín (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this sentence, because I cannot make head or tails of it: I'm sorry is a mistake this estatement is present now in page and sincerously think that's right, because this is the opinion of Menendez Pidal and Damaso Alonso, and I don't know if is the most qualified opinion, but I'm sure that is traditional opinion. Once you clarify it, I'll retake the discussion. --Jotamar (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a mistaken, because I thought that your statement replaced other previous, hence my ungry. In respect, to that statement what you refer, you should direct it to who made it (this phrase is in the first version, from four years ago). Anyway, neither I see it so bad. From a point of formal view, is correct. In this statement only it refer to the traditional opinion (not the true opinion, neither the last word in the materia). His author uses correctly the sources, with especific quotes of Menéndez Pidal, Eugenio Coseriu, Lindley Cintra and Damaso Alonso (respect this autor fail the quote, although is well known this reference), etc.., after refers to the opinion of other authors modernest, among them, Frias Conde, who more know of this issue, in my opinion, and Xan Babarro. Sincerously, I think that there isn't controversy in this assertion. Even, someone who doesn't understand it so, like ex-president of ALLA, mr. Garcia Arias, precisely, he start their issue study from the criticism of this traditional position. Perhaps, only is reprehensible, the next sentences, the conection following with policy questions. I've seen worse things in WP, and in policy questions is implicit that everyone think diferent.

Candalín (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to replace for this statement:

Low three paragraphs and,

«That traditional point of view it should be to clarify, so any division of language areas is (necessarily) at least partially arbitrary, from point of view of the modern linguistic Science, the eonavian is a good example of a linguistic continuum of the languages in the Northwest of Iberian Peninsula and despite, in now, there is a strong influence of castillian, oficial language for eight centuries, still is appreciated the existence of many common features with the neighbour languages»

Only would be missing include the bibliographical quotes, with necessary reference to Damaso Alonso, García Arias and Frias Conde. The most elegant overview, it would be refer to the dispute between Garcia Arias and Frias Conde, leaving room for everyone to draw their own conclusion. It's to say the same, but without unfair comparative reference with other languages. This is a example, sure that there are another better.

Candalín (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As deciphering your English seems to be getting more and more difficult each day, I'll try a quick solution. I'll reword the heading, and then you tell me what you think of it. --Jotamar (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Renamed the article to "Eonavian dialect", in the same fashion as Aranese, Ribagorçan, Benasquese (transitional) dialects. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follows WP:NCLANG. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting what happen with this page. Here, there are many concerned persons on this subject, we have read, we have studied this language and we have wanted to produce information, quotes, references, texts and opinions, because this language, its evolution and its study is a really very interesting subject for the linguists. Its study shows us the origin and evolution the romances languages in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula. I think so really worth. Anyway, view the history of the page.

However, which prevails at the end, it's the opinion of the first "enlightened", who have heard no word in his life in Eonavian, and know nothing about this language. His production is limited to assert, like a roman Pope, the truth about things who they know nothing. They state in three words the absolute truth about polemic questions, that others don't dare us to deal with. Well, that is so, it is the spirit of Wikipedia.

The term dialect is a confused and polemic term, inadequate and contrary to WP: NPOV policies. On the one hand, it makes reference from a philological point of view, to the root the language, i.e., the Spanish is a dialect of Latin, (however nobody appointment a Spanish like a dialect). Another hand refers a language unregulated, which lacks the grammatical rules, like "spanglish" . At last, the word has a negative connotation, like a jargon which is not enough to be considered like a language.
Well, unlike the Aranese, Ribagorçan, Benasquese (transitional) dialects:
- The eonavian has his origin in a dead language, the Galician-portuguese language. Like Spanish, the eonavian is orphan. On this way, Eonavian isn't a dialect because his philolological father is dead.
- The Eonavian has a written production continues since XII century, the written production about Aranese, Ribagorçan and Benasquese languages are not berofe to XX century. Even, the Asturian the firsts writes is not before XVII century and the documents in Galician are the XII century too.
- The Eonavian has, not one but two gramaticals rules, the Cotarelo Valledor proposition and the proposition Navia-Eo Secretary (official in the Asturian territory, those rules are used by eonavian scholars).
- The Eeonavian is spoken by more 50,000 people, the others dialects less 5,000.
- The Eonavian is recognized like a language by law, law 1/1998 march 23 th


- I would like who have moved the name of the language, thinks about it and leave well enough alone .--Candalín (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eonavian is not recognised as a language. Can you prove your statements? (e.g. Xavier Frías Conde, on "A Brief Outline of Historical Sociolinguistics of the Galician language" (p. 7–8), labels Eonavian as a Galician dialect: "Galician Eonavian" or "Galician in Asturias". I checked Ethnologue; and, as expected, it doesn't mention a word about eonaviego... What about the ELL? ). — Jɑυмe (xarrades) 01:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Frías Conde is one of the best linguists who has estudied the eonavian. His thesis, "El gallego exterior a las Fronteras Administrativas" has a huge information and it's a necessary reference in this language. Unfortunately he takes some years without produce any interesting thing about this question because his professional life is following another way. Nonetheless if you read more above, you could see, as there are many opinions more about this subject. This is a polemic question, that mixed politics aspects. For that reason we must be very careful with WP NPOV policies, the term dialect seems to choose for one the option, in that sense WP: NCLANG advises a restricted use for this term.

In regarding your questions, I thought that terminology, "dialect", are outdated as Scientific term. In any case it's for me very dificult give you a answer because, we could understand this term in a several ways. I would tell you the following:

- Eonavian appears in Geolang, http://www.geolang.com/iso639-6/sortLangName.asp,[dead link] atrg, asts, Astur-Gallaico. Eonavian is one of the languages deal with European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe-portal/what-we-do/culture-and-nature/minority-languages?dynLink=true&layoutId=63&dlgroupId=10226&fromArticleId=[failed verification] http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/EDOC12300.pdf[failed verification]

- The first dictionary of Eonavian published in 1932 by Acevedo y Huelves y Fernández.

- The Eonavian has had and has in current a important litterary production, I quote folowing authors: Bernardo Acevedo y Huelves, Ramón García González, (1870-1938), Conrado Villar Loza, (Taramundi 1873-Tapia 1962), Alexandro Sela, Manuel García Sánchez, Manolo Galano, Jacinto Díaz López, Xose Miguel Suárez, Xavier Frías Conde, Benigno Fernández Braña, Xan Castañeira, Xosé Máximo Fernández, Susa Argul Muniz, Xosé Antonio Ron Tejedo, Adela Conde Valledor, Crisanto Veiguela, (Vegadeo 1959), Alejandro Antúnez Blanco, (Navia 1933), Teresa López, (Boal 1950), Xoxe carlos Alvárez Blanco, Xavier Vilareyo (Mieres 1967), Fredo de Carbexe, (El Franco 1967), Aurora García Rivas, etc.

- Since year 2000 the association Xeira organizes a litterary concurse.

- In eonavian there are a periodic publications in the newspapers since 1895, in Las Riveras del Eo, El Castropol and the Aldeano. Magazines written only in Eonaviego since 1992: A freita, Entrambasauguas, Britonia, etc. The Eonavian has his owner institution by Navia-Eo linguist secretary since 1995. --Candalín (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid references, I can't find Eonavian is recognised as a language from a linguistic point of view. Xavier Frías classifies it as a Galician dialect, not as a different language. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 01:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want valid refences of linguist point of view, the problem is which distinction is more philological question than linguist, and I repeat that word have a ambigous and polemic content. It is own about Philological Science. Anyway, if you read above, you will see the four positions about this subject: Galician Theory, Asturian Theory, mixed theory and authonomous theory. Only the authors that hold the first theory, they hold than eonavian is not a language. Regarding Frías Conde, I quote in the first theory, but is very relative his position. When Frias Conde was young he was very active in favour of Galician theory, and his close a Mdga and other actives groups, because in that moment the question was very hard polemic. Today, the things are very different, there are a some more consensus of this issue. In current I don't know what is the position of Frias Conde, because he is more interested in regarding linguist questions than philologic, but I read all that he publish, and I don't think so he hold that eonavian there are not a Language in so taxative terms that you have exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candalín (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add references please?

I think those theories ought to be something like:

  • Galician dialect
  • Asturian dialect
  • Asturian–Galician transitional dialect
  • Different language from Galician and Asturian.

Note WP:WEIGHT also applies here, most linguists concur that Eonavian is a Galician dialect... Jɑυмe (xarrades) 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot sources produced by me in the article. You only need to see the historial. Well, but, how many quotes have you produced. What is your interest in this question. Why do you start about the end and don't explain nothing? Have you ever listen the people of Eo-navia? I'm sorry but I think that you have read nothing about this subject in your life. At least, one question, why do you compare the situation of Eonavian than Aranese, Ribagorzan and Benasquese, when the dependence of this "dialects" is huge polemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candalín (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can imagine, I don't know much in detail about this variety.
My only interest here was to determine what is Eonavian. Consequently, I came to move the article because a large majority of scholars consider it a dialect (e.g. Lindley, Frías, Coşeriu, Pidal, etc.), in contrast to less frequent or isolated authors who classify it as a different language. I wasn't expecting this term ("dialect") to cause too much inconvenience. For this reason, I don't really want to insist on this... I think these sort of debates about transitional dialects (whether languages or not) turn out to be boring and pointless. It is fine by me to label Eonavian as both, a language or a dialect, but WP:WEIGHT should be taken into account. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 18:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartulary of the Oscos Abbey[edit]

I tried to clean up 'The Cartulary of the Oscos Abbey' section which was hard for me to understand; but I claim no expertise on the topic so I may have made inadvertent errors. It might be worth moving that section to its own page. Penalba2000 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the pronunciation of English[edit]

Why do we ned the English pronunciation in comparingRui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC) a number of related variants and dialects?[reply]

I support removing them. They are completely irrelevant to the topic (and many are incorrect). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them. Their presence in the table was ridiculous. Acasson (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crap pronunciations[edit]

The Portuguese IPAs are a mixture of Brazilian and European pronunciation; some have wrong stress and vowel height. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galician-Asturian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galician-Asturian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galician–Asturian&oldid=1202194400"