Talk:Arabic language influence on the Spanish language

Abismal

It's obviously related to the English abysmal and stems from abyss which is of Greek origin. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abysm#English 217.118.93.119 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please edit at bottom of talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. Source has been included. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

This list is an open list, there may be words missing in the letters I have already finished with. There are also many words which are of debated origin and many words with arab etymologies ,which are not mentioned in the RAE. An example of this may be "zorra": Zorra means fox but also prostitute. The "léxico de Julio Casares" of 1966 associates this term to "Surriya" (concubine) in Arabic. A case, of one word with 2 meanings and 2 etymologies: The mammal from Portuguese and the prostitute from Arabic. This seems to be quite common in Spanish.--Guzman ramirez 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this page from "Spanish Words of Arabic origin", to this one, hoping to encompass more influences than the lexical ones in this article.--Guzman ramirez 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Words to be added A-B-C

A

• ababol:

.*abitaque:

• alacena/alhacena
• albarán
• albarrán
• alcatara/alquitara
• almacabra
• almoharrefa
• almotacén
• almunia
• alpechín
• alquería
• añagaza
• arricés
• atafarra/ataharre
• aljez
• alloza
• almojama (mojama)
• atarfe
• azuche

A INCLUDED

B

• balda (2 meanings, 2 etymologies)
• bancal
• bezoar
• buz

B included

C

• cebiche
• ceneque
• chiquero
• choz
• cid
• cora
• corma

C included

Merge or not Merge?

I think there should be two articles. The Arabic influence on the Spanish language should contain only the histroical background, while List of Spanish words of Arabic origin the actual words. jidan 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the shorter article should be merged into the longer one which is more methodical and complete. Have a look at it. There is nothing to say on the historical background of arabic influence on Spanish...certainly not enough for an article.--Guzman ramirez 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two...The earlier we merge them the better. Just saving work later on...--Burgas00 11:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions are unnecessary

It would save us a lot of time and effort if we do not include a definition for each word. Just the derivation would be good enough. But if it easy to add the definion, then I see no problem, I just think that there is a lot of work to do on this page, so we should focus on the etymology. --Inahet 14:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC) http://www.sgci.mec.es/be/media/pdfs/articulos/Mosaico083.pdf

Format

Please adhere to the following format when making additions to the list (it would save us a lot of time and effort):

1. word: translation. From word "translation."

#'''word''': translation. From ''word'' "translation."

For example

1. aceite: oil. From Arabic az-zeit "oil."

If a Spanish word has more than one translation, then separate each with a semicolon.

1. abalorio: cheap jewelery; jewelery beads. From Andalusi Arabic al ballúri "made of glass."

If the Arabic word has the same meaning as the Spanish word, then add "of the same meaning"

For example

1. albaquía: the remainder. From al-baqeya of the same meaning.

Also don't capitalize the first letter of the description unless it is a name. For example

1. abalorio: cheap jewelery; jewelery beads. From Andalusi Arabic al ballúri: "Made of glass."

NOT

1. abalorio: Cheap jewelery; jewelery beads. From Andalusi Arabic al ballúri: "Made of glass."

Controversial etymologies

So far the words which will cause controversy are:

• Usted (very similar to Ustaath in Arabic (and Urdu Usted) and used in a similar way) evolution from Vuestra Merced is however well documented.
• Paella which has an alternative Arabic etymology "ba9iya".
• Flamenco and Blas Infante's famous Fellah Mengu.
• Matar According to some sources it is related to Arabic Matta.
• Zoquete
• Zorra
• GazpachoDRAE says that it has probable Greek origin, and passed to Spanish through Arabic, but others vote for pre-Roman origin (Caspa)

Words Missing!!!

There may be over 2000 words missing in the list...

Please add words of Arabic origin which are not on the article to the list below so that they can be checked.

This list will be added to the main list when they reach a significant number.

1. azufre
2. baldosa, from my point of view, the same origin as balda. Both are cosidered by Spanish Academy from uncertain origin. First time I realized the origin was that, reading a dictionary of Arabic, I felt excited, thinking that I was the first to discover it, (what here is called Original Research) reading in the DRAE that uncertain origin. I was going to write to the Academy when I saw it in an old ethymological dictionary. So it is known, but the Academy doesn´t accept it, I don´t know why. It is a charming story: The "Vía de la Plata" ("Silver Way") hasn´t nothing to do with silver, but with Blata, or Balta (vowels move frequently in Arabic), that means pavimented. Arabs saw the Roman Road, that conserved its paviment, and as it was almost the only way that was like that, they called it "The Pavimented". From Balta, Blata and Plata. So Balda, that has a relationed meaning comes from Balta, and Baldosa is another form of transformation, that conserved more exactly its original meaning. Does anybody have an opinion about this?
3. chuzo
4. espinaca
5. flamenco (?)
6. gaza (?)
7. gazpacho (?)
8. hala (?)
9. jalear
10. jaguarzo
11. lacre
12. latón
13. magarza/magarzuela
14. mahozmedín
15. mamarracho
16. márfega
17. márraga
18. mártaga
19. máscara
20. matar ??? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=matador&searchmode=none
21. mazamorra
22. mengano
23. melena
24. místico
25. mocárabe
26. moharracho
27. mojama
28. monzón
29. motacén
30. ¡Olé!
31. tabaco
32. taifa
33. Usted (???) similar to Ustaaz in Arabic. Usually considered a contraction of Vuestra Merced
34. yemení
35. zabacequia
36. zabatán
37. zafío (not zafio)
38. zafra (4 meanings with 4 different arabic etymologies)
39. zamboa
40. zape
41. zargatona/zaragatona
42. zoquete
43. zurrapa
44. Zorra (?)

As for 'azufre', 'sulfur' or 'sulpur' existed in Latin; on the other hand, the Spanish word's prefix 'a-' does suggest that an Arabic form replaced the native form of Latin origin. Hurmata 13:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a difficult one. I think there are enough controversial words to make a separate list for them. (matar, azufre,flamenco, usted etc...)--Guzman ramirez 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Toponyms (place names) in Spain and Portugal of Arabic origin

Why are the Toponyms of Portugal in here? Isn't it about the Spanish Language? Should be only about Spain.

Yeah well there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal during the Al-Andalus period so I thought that toponyms should be those of Iberia generally. Maybe we should change the title to "Toponyms of Iberia"- that way the British colony of Gibraltar could also be included.--Guzman ramirez 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lisboa (Lisbon). Capital of Portugal. Derived from original Arabic name: al-'Ishbūnah in Arabic Ulishbona.

• Yes, there was no distinction, but the toponims should be only of Spain and not of Portugal. Otherwise you would have to add the Portuguese words of Arabic origin if you want to use the fact that there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal during the Al-Andalus period.

• "Lisboa (Lisbon). Capital of Portugal. Derived from original Arabic name: al-'Ishbūnah in Arabic ."

This is wrong, Lisboa derived from the name the Suevi or the Wisigoth gave: Ulishbona. The Arabs came much later and arabised the name. Check the wikipedia page http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist%C3%B3ria_de_Lisboa

Ok I will check that and delete Lisbon. Although it seems the name is not of visigothic but of Phoenician origin -Alis Usbo (Safe port).--Guzman ramirez 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The etymology of "Lisboa" is debated, but likely Roman or pre-Roman. FilipeS 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

English verb?

decipher: from sifr "zero."

This looks quite English, not Spanish.--zeno 14:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish does have descifrar, but it violate the rule in place against entries that are derivations of other entries. Hurmata 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule is an elastic one, as explained. When they are obvious derivations they must not be included. The word cifra in Spanish means "number" and for Spanish speakers it is quite obvious and straightforward that descifrar is a derivation of cifra.--Guzman ramirez 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

¿ "Arabic loanwords in Spanish" ?

The old title, "Spanish words of Arabic origin" was inaccurate because some Arabic words are themselves loanwords (from Persian, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc.). Recently, the title was changed to "Arabic influence on the Spanish language", which is correct, but a little vague if vocabulary's all that's in question. Now, if we were to eventually expand the article to encompass influence on grammar and/or pronunciation, then the current title would be very fortunate.

In the meantime, while my suggestion undergoes consideration, I have made corresponding changes in the body of the text. These are not disruptive, unlike renaming a page. I also updated the category labels at the bottom of the article to use the current article title. Finally, I updated the internal link to the English vocabulary page, since I have just totally edited it AND changed its title.

I don't intend to change the title of this article -- I leave that to the people who have built this article, in case they come to agree with me. :) Hurmata 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Hurmata--Guzman ramirez 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldea and mamarracho are very clearly Basque, probably others too. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.8.46 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Joan Coromines gives Arabic origin for both. --Jotamar (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Make sure the word is indeed an Arabic loanword

I just removed baño. A few others are doubtful: droga, dado, to judge by the etymologies in some leading English language dictionaries at dictionary.reference.com. Beware of overenthusiasm. But by the same dictionaries, the claims for droga and dado are plausible. Could it be that the English language dictionaries need to consult etymological scholarship from Spain more than they have? Hurmata 07:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No overenthusiasm here, Hurmata. Go to www.rae.es the royal academy of the Spanish language to find the etymology of these words. --Guzman ramirez 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. But RAE does agree that baño is from Latin. And as for dado, they say *quizá* del ár. clás. a'dad.

Thanks for referring me to the dictionary at the RAE Website. I must add its etymologies to the list of Arabic loanwords in English. RAE even distinguishes between Hispanic Arabic and Classical Arabic. Hurmata 10:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see... it must have been eliminated for some reason. I have a harcopy of the rae at home in which an arabic etymology of baño is given... --Guzman ramirez 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• We are talking about baño meaning "bath, bathroom" right? Because that is definitely from L balnea. Is there a different meaning that could possibly be Arabic-derived? --Hraefen ^Talk 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Check bagnio as in los baños de Argel. --84.20.17.84 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but baño in the sense of prison is also of latin etymology and we are not talking in the sense of bath or bathroom. hmmm... this is a difficult one because I clearly remember reading the arabic root of the term baño although i dont remember the meaning of the word which is not of common usage in Spanish. I dont have the hard copy of the RAE where I read it on me at the moment but ill add the etymology and meaning as soon as i get my hands of it. www.rae.es gives 16 definitions of baño... There is also the possibility that the word has been eliminated from the dictionary by the RAE as an anachronism.--Guzman ramirez 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

naranja: I just returned from Iran where I was told that naranja is a Spanish word that was borrowed into Persian (Farsi) and Arabic--one of the few words that went from Spain toward the east and not in the opposite direction. As evidence, my informant explained that a different type of orange is called a "portugal" in Iran. Do others have information on this? ANyway, great list, thanks all! Vcrs 05:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that so many people, passionately interested in Spanish etymology, can carry on a discussion without once mentioning the Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico, by Joan Corominas. This six-volume work, published 1980-1991, makes all other Spanish etymological dictionaries -- yes, including the DRAE -- look like hit-and-run. Read the Wiki article about it, then find a library that owns it. Kotabatubara (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• For naranja, see entry in the wiktionary. Dravidian (possibly) > Sanskript > Persian > Arabic > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmorales0002 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How about a table?

The list of words is getting too large. I highly recommend a table like the one I just did [1]. In my opinion it eases a lot the navigation. The table has the following format:

Word	Arabic root	Description
column 1	column 2	column 3

Code:

 
{| class="wikitable"
! Word             !! Arabic root             !! Description</tr>
| column 1 ||  column 2 || column 3</tr>
|}

To enter a new entry to the table you have to add this:

|word||arabic root||description</tr> 

Each letter (A,B,C..etc) will have its own table, i.e. not a single big table. So, how about it? Jidan 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree but dont forget there is the word then the meaning in spanish then the arabic root and the meaning of the arabic root. so maybe we need 4 columns. What do u think?--Guzman ramirez 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I saw List of Arabic loanwords in English, and I liked the formatting there (its simple). What do yuou think? Jidan 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I agree.--Guzman ramirez 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

General comment

Just an outsider's comment ... ,,, There is, of course, Wikipedia's general preference against "list pages" but this page seems to be trying to be something more than that with the lists as simply supporting information. IMHO the article should focus more in the direction of an intellectually meaningful discussion of these influences. Specifically

• There needs to be more formal discussion on how the influences occurred. I.e. briefly summarize when the main borrowing happened, discuss Mozarabic as an intermediary for the borrowing, discuss what kinds of borrowings were most common, what were the effects on grammar and phonology apart from vocabulary, etc.
• Any lists should be essentially an "Appendix" at the end of the article.

--Mcorazao 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I myself am especially interested in the chronology. But my preliminary literature search led me to suspect that there has been little published in English about the history of Arabic loanwords in Spanish, OR in English, and also to suspect that the Spanish language literature is held at hardly any university libraries here in the USA. In this article, I have listed several books by Spaniards that are devoted to the topic -- and there's been a lot of new scholarship since 1980. We need some Spaniards to acudir a unas universidades españolas y distill the contents of these books and add the information to the article.

Well I agree with both of you. This article is slowly evolving from an original list and a meaningful discussion on the influences at the beginning of the article would be most welcome.--Guzman ramirez 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article which I think Hurmata added is very useful in a possible future creation of this discussion. http://www.sgci.mec.es/be/media/pdfs/articulos/Mosaico083.pdf--Guzman ramirez 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronouns? (and preps?)

The lead paragraph now say there are a few pronouns and prepositions from Arabic in Spanish. Well, there is hasta as a prep (any others?), but I can't think of any pronouns. Fulano is a placeholder rather than a pronoun. I thought I'd ask before changing it. Drmaik 06:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

¿Usted?/Other influences

Not a loan word, but an unusual contraction formed under pressure of the Arabic "ustath" (don't know spelling). If the article is on influence, and not just loan words, that looks like a fairly major omission. Jd2718 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is much which is missing in this article and the influences of arabic are many and are not restricted to loanwords... I agree that Usted must be at least partially influenced by arabic ustaadh and many sources support this idea. The question is whether we should focus on completing the vast loanword section first before moving onto other influences or whether we should work on everything at the same time opening new sections now.

Another very visible influence is the use of the suffix -í e.g. Ceutí, Marbellí etc...

--Guzman ramirez 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that it would disrupt the work on the article to do a little of both at once? Jd2718 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No I dont think so, but perhaps it would be preferable to start doing some research on other influences and posting findings here and once we have something substantial we can work on how to organize it into sections on the article. A section is definitely needed on phonetical influence.--Guzman ramirez 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the talk page, i proposed a few months ago a new section for possible, partial or controversial loanwords such as Usted, Matar, Flamenco etc... --Guzman ramirez 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sgci.mec.es/be/media/pdfs/articulos/Mosaico083.pdf

• The above seems to be a dead link. Kotabatubara (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Before we talk about the Arabic noun ustadh 'professor' as a possible source for the Spanish pronoun usted, I want to hear from an expert on Arabic as to whether ustadh was ever used as a form of address. Otherwise, we are dealing with a phonetic coincidence and a semantic long leap. Spanish usted is not documented until well over a century after the fall of Moorish Granada. That's a long time to be "latent". Kotabatubara (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Any reference why "usted" from arabic ustaad is unlikely ? Actually it sounds much more relevant than "vuestra merced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.152.60 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

2007-02-27 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have recently edited this article, adding an introduction, new sections and hopefully improving it. Anyone has any comments, suggestions or criticisms?--Guzman ramirez 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"he"

Maybe I'm wrong but the description of "he" seems to be totally off. It is not an adverb at all but a verb, "haber" used in the same place as "have" in the perfect tenses of English. "He" is the 1st person singular present form of this verb. Therefore in the example reworked below, "he" corresponds to "have", "lo" to "it". Te lo he dicho meaning I have told you it

Te lo he dicho you it (I) have told

That's just my 2 cents, I haven't actually edited the article because I am not a native speaker of Spanish- if anyone reading this is please let me know if this correction would be valid or not. Thanks! Juanitaatinauj 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a native spanish speaker and I agree with the meaning of "he" as it is exemplified in the translation of "Te lo he dicho" as "I have told you it": Te (to you) lo (it) he (I have) dicho (told). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.22.74 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Fucking Christ, "he" an adverb? OK "Guzman Ramirez", how do you explain "te lo hemos/han/hubiera/etc. dicho"? Are you a native Spanish speaker, or are you an Islamic chauvinist Middle Easterner or something similar, maybe a Spanish convert to Islam? For you, the hundreds of genuine Arab loanwords aren't enough. I'm sick of these acts of (to use an English phrase), gilding the lily. Like claiming "baño" for this list.

And whoever raised the objection I'm agreeing with: please sign your comments. Hurmata 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. Hurmata, please read WP:CIVIL. This is not the way to conduct discussion. I have to say that Guzman Ramirez seems to me to be very balanced, and does not seem motivated by proving or disproving Arabic influence on Spanish, just listing the evidence. But the point here is not an editor's bias, but how to improve wikipedia. On the issue (Te lo he dicho) I think the removal was correct. But there was another usage (with which I am not familiar) 'he aqui', which was also deleted: can someone provide a reference for that. As for 'hasta', it's the first time I've heard of a Latin origin for this, but at least a reference was provided (can't connect to the site right now, though). Drmaik 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

corrected Hurmata's comment on 'hasta', which did not reflect what www.rae.es said. Drmaik 05:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He aquí translates idiomatically as "behold!", "well get a load of this", and such like. For example, see it used several times in a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, http://spanish.about.com/library/weekly/aa041700a.htm. "I have here" is obviously well suited to be a metaphor for "I vehemently call your attention to something that is already PREsent to you or that I am about to preSENT to you". The same Web site has another page where it lists "he aquí" in a list of idioms based on the verb "haber" (Google "he aqui").

The claim I deleted about "te lo he dicho" is such an affront to common sense, and such an affront to the intelligence of anyone who has even a modest proficiency in Romance languages, that it is an act of intellectual vandalism. The only states of mind which could engender it are dementia (especially on the part of a native speaker) or insincerity (hidden agenda). Hurmata 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual vandalism merits a harsh response. Hurmata 07:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:assume good faith. I can see how the entry at www.rae.es could be misunderstood in the way that was previously recorded. Jumping to conclusions about 'intellectual vandalism' is not what's called for. 'Carelessness', something which most of us are prone to, is also a possible cause. Whatever the cause, such a response was not merited. Drmaik 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I was discussing "te lo he dicho" (which was the antecedent, and therefore the most probable reading), but it would have been better to be clearer. My apologies. Drmaik 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Drmaik's immediately preceding contribution is misleading in a way that is unfair to me. In particular, Drmaik's careless writing makes it seem that my allegation of intellectual vandalism was directed at a different article contribution other than the one it was really directed to.

How is Drmaik's latest post misleading? Because it is formatted so that it mooshes together comments on two events in such a way that he seems to be talking about one; and because even in his/her preceding posts he does not make clear what he's referring to. Other persons would have to scrutinize keenly the last few hours of posts AND of contributions to the *article* to realize what all is going on.

Specifically, I edited the entry *in the article* for 'hasta' and cited www.rae.es. Drmaik has now within the last half day written two posts in which he/she argues I misinterpreted what RAE says. But my charge of intellectual vandalism (made within the last half day) WAS NOT directed in particular at any previous version of the entry for 'hasta'! Read the last few posts. Hurmata 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example of the use of 'he aquí', to add to the example I provided several hours ago within this subheading. The example occurs in a document (http://www.cees.org.gt/html/topicos/indice-mes.htm) which is a political polemic from a Web site in Guatemala. The Web site is for an organization calling itself (English translation) Center for Economico-Social Studies, CEES. 'He aquí' is used twice in this short essay. For example,

"No son los avaros los que establecen empresas como Microsoft. No debemos tachar de inmorales a los individuos que trabajan para beneficio propio y de sus familias. Nacemos con talentos recibidos de Dios y es propio que desarrollemos plenamente nuestros talentos. He aquí la gran virtud del capitalismo democrático: Garantiza que ..."

In this usage, 'he aquí' can be translated variously as '*so*, ...', 'there you have it', 'so you *see*, ...". Obviously this is an extension of 'he aquí' meaning 'behold!'. 'Behold!' means "I insistently draw your attention to something you can see or hear", whereas in this polemic, it means "I insistently draw you attention to a conclusion I draw from the argument I am making." I have noted above that 'behold!' in turn is a natural extension of the plain meaning of 'he aquí', which is "I have here". By the way, that is of course the *usual* meaning, as in "I have here a copy of the new X". Hurmata 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support Drmaik. I am surprised at this sudden attack:-). I hope it signals that more people are willing to contribute to the article though.

Hurmata, to answer your questions, yes I am a native speaker of Spanish, and no Islam is not my religion neither of choice nor of birth. I have chosen to edit this article because I have knowledge of Arabic and an interest in etymology.

In any case, if you have any doubts or questions regarding the Spanish language, you can ask me, I will be glad to respond.

Indeed I was surprised myself at my own edit regarding "he". I had exactly the same thought myself. How can he be of Arabic origin if it is used in the sense of haber? Certainly it is not Arabic in that sense. I just left it that way because the www.rae.es gives an Arabic etymology for he in all its uses (including what I commonly felt and still feel to be a conjugation of haber). I thought it might be cleared up later on with some other source, and I certainly did not intend to commit "intelectual vandalism". In anycase the word should be mantained at least in the sense of "he aquí". As for your discussions regarding "hasta" I havent read them yet so I will post my opinion now in the section below. --Guzman ramirez 00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the Arabic origin for "he" is plausible. We are not talking about the form of the verb "haber", here, but rather about a peculiar word, difficult to classify, which means something a bit like "voici" or "voilà" in French. I understand that people get confused about Spanish, because there are two words "he" with different meanings, but in Portuguese the difference is clear: the verb is "hei", the adverb is "eis". Although "eis" has a similar meaning to the Latin "ecce" (as in "Ecce homo"), linguists are unsure about its origin. They don't seem to think it's Latin. FilipeS 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he aquí's meaning isn't such a mistery nor deserves many speculations: he aquí is simply another form (archaic but still used in the constructed phrase) of saying hay aquí. Returning to the example above, "He aquí la gran virtud...", it's just like sating "Hay aquí la gran virtud..." or, to express it clearly, "Esta es la gran virtud...".

Not according to the Real Academia. We wouldnt be discussing this otherwise. See here: http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=he

--Guzman ramirez 20:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasta

Several hours ago, I edited the entry for this word, citing the entry for this word in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE). Drmaik, as he/she announced within the preceding subheading deleted my edit arguing I had misinterpreted what RAE has to say. Drmaik has just repeated this argument, writing: "I can see how the entry at www.rae.es could be misunderstood in the way that was previously recorded." (By the way, the use of "recorded" is misleading because Drmaik never specified why h/s concluded I had misunderstood, h/s just asserted that I misunderstood.) I reply now that I did not misunderstand RAE. RAE says (in Spanish of course),

'hasta'. From Hispanic Arabic hatta, [which was] influenced by Latin 'ad ista', [meaning] 'to that'.

What nuance the RAE is proposing by saying "influenced by" rather than "from", I don't know what that nuance is. Nevertheless, I assert that it is logical to say that the Hispanic Arabic word comes from a Latin phrase, and that therefore it is Drmaik who misunderstands. Drmaik needs to explain to us how it is that he has correctly understood and I have incorrectly misunderstood. Hurmata 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was requested to explain myself, I'll just say that Guzman has already explained it. The form 'hasta' was influenced by Latin. I'd always assumed the s appeared because of the affricate realisation (ts) that t sometimes has in Moroccan Arabic, but that was an assumption, and that might be a recent phenomenon not found in Andalusi, and I don't think any other words have shown a similar influence. So the www.rae.es expalanation for hatta -> hasta seems very reasonable. hatta is a classical Arabic word, for which no Latin origin is purported. Drmaik 05:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the RAE is clear enough. The word is of Arabic origin. It is also influenced by the Latin ad ista. What is the problem?

It is not the Andalusi Arabic word Hatta which has been influenced by Latin but its later transformation into Hasta which has been influenced by Latin. Hatta is also used in classical arabic.

There is no nuance to understand. If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are mistaken.--Guzman ramirez 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Baño

I have noted complaints by Hurmata regarding my insistence on temporarily mantaining the word baño in the list until I could find the source giving support to an Arabic etymology.

I have finally found it and it is my hard back copy of the 21st edition of the RAE Dicionario de la Lengua Española. Under the entry baño it says the following:

Baño: (De or. inc.; cf. árabe bunayya edificio) Especie de corral grande o patio con aposentillos o chozas alrededor, en el cual los moros tenían encerrados a los cautivos.

So it is used in the sense of a prison. The question is whether RAE's proposed definition is correct... I am not so sure of it, since the proposed origin given in wikipedia entry "bagnio" seems equally plausible. Any opinions?

--Guzman ramirez 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Other sources

Whil looking for something else entirely, I came across http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002005.php which leads to http://www.apresmoiledeluge.blogspot.com/2005/07/lingstica-arabismos-del-castellano.html,

which seems to be a well-sourced list of what's being done here. Drmaik 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although it seems we already have quite a few more words than in that site.--Guzman ramirez 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

backup here

I saw an old post in arabic wikipedia asking for help and i'll help in writeing arabic words... i did a few.. will do some more soon Histolo2 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Guzman ramirez 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "a"

As far as I know, this prefix, meaning similarity or approach, is from Latin ad. FilipeS 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it sounds dubious to me as well... Im taking it out for the moment. It is a sourced statement though.--Guzman ramirez 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful article: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/scclng/01350531966682286190680/p0000001.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guzman ramirez (talk • contribs) 23:45, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

What's useful about it? FilipeS (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Guay" and "papagayo"

I have come across two more possible arabisms: Papagayo which has a pretty convincing arabic etymology and the expression "guay" which according to one source, comes from "Kwayyis".

I have added only Papagayo for the moment. Neither etymologies are in the RAE.

Any thoughts? --Guzman ramirez 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that Guay had never been used before the early 80s, i.e. "guay del paraguay". --Asterion^talk 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

True. Apparently it was imported from Morocco in the 60s by Dope-smoking hippies...--Guzman ramirez 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for stating that papagayo is of Arabic origin? FilipeS (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here: See popinjay: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=p&p=24 --Guzman ramirez (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Guay? [2] --Asterion^talk 20:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Papagayo - Found it in this book, from Hathitrust.org - Glosario etimológico de las palabras españolas (castellanas, catalanas, gallegas, mallorquinas, portuguesas, valencianas y bascongadas). De orígen oriental (árabe, hebreo, malayo, persa y turco) By: D. Leopoldo de Eguilaz y Yanguas Published 1886 - "From Arabic babagá, from Persian bapgá. Papagayo is the bird of the Indias"08:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)08:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuhayPinoy (talk • contribs)

Alhadida

Couldnt find it on the RAE but definitely exists after google check. Should we scrap it?--Guzman ramirez (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a number of arabisms and their etymologies missing from the list. http://www.diccionariosdigitales.net/GLOSARIOS%20y%20VOCABULARIOS/DICCIONARIO%20GENERAL%20DE%20LA%20LENGUA%20ESPA%C3%91OLA-ALGA-ALGU.htm

--Guzman ramirez (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah

Wikipedia is not a repository for all information. It is also not a dictionary or a translation dictionary or a place for long lists (i.e. this should not be a "list of words of Arabic origin"). There are over a thousand dictionary entries on this page. We need to seriously parse this down. Nevertheless, if this information isn't already transwikied to Wiktionary, it should be. We should also consider organizing the words we keep here by things which came through Latin, which introduced new concepts, etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think that is a good idea. I don't see what use it would be to eliminate entries from this list. --Guzman ramirez (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this list should be exhaustive? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess because all other similar lists on wikipedia are also exhaustive... for reasons of coherency. In any case the list is not quite exhaustive.. see rationale for inclusion at the beginning of the article.--Guzman ramirez (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to them? I see List of English words of French origin has 1600 but this is hardly exhaustive and can also be addressed. I also see List of Latin phrases is split into three articles (though this isn't a list of loanwords). The others I've seen aren't nearly as long. Which ones are you thinking of? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In this article the rationale for inclusion has cut down potential entries from over 4000 to less than 1500. I think you are misinterpreting wikipedia policy regarding lists... Have a look at List of English words of French origin which contains around 1600 entries... --Guzman ramirez (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned List of English words of French origin. Unless one would like to argue for an English-centric bias (which would be POV), it is equally problematic. What about my proposal of grouping words according to certain classes or types (religious words, plants, etc)? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I read quickly over your post. As for the article, I think that the priority is getting the translations at this stage. I, and I assume other people who speak Spanish or are interested in the Spanish language, would prefer an alphabetical listing of words for general interest. It would be an impossible task to group words by classes or types.. have a look at the different words! I think the end result would be very chaotic.--Guzman ramirez (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the solution you propose would involve reducing the list to, say, 100 very commonly used words. This would then put us in the difficult situation of censuring the page as editors added new words having to argue that the word was not commonly used enough or that there are too many words already...

I also deleted the disclaimer on some words not being commonly used. This is true for half the words you will find if you open a dictionary on a random page. It also seems to imply that Arabisms in Spanish are fundamentally archaisms which I don't think is true. Some words I would think to be seldomly (or never) used when in fact some Spanish speakers use them all the time. For example, I don't think I have ever heard the word "alferecía" used by anyone except members of my own family :-). --Guzman ramirez (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that all dictionaries hold lots of archaisms; you were probably thinking of the Real Academia dictionary. And the implication that you find is just your personal view. Be aware that some words in the list are now obsolete... is quite a neutral observation and in fact an understatement. --Jotamar (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Guiri and Gauri?

Is there any relationship between the Spanish word "Guiri" and the Moroccan Arabic "Gauri". Gauri means European or christian in Arabic and Guiri in Spanish means foreigner/tourist/American or northern european....

I think the words and meaning are too similar for them not to be connected. I read somewhere that they are both derived from Kafir in classical arabic. However my Spanish dictionary claims a Basque etymology from the Carlist wars... --81.38.85.178 (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes after a google search, found this etymology (in Spanish) http://www.yabiladi.com/forum/read-75-1744448.html --81.38.85.178 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"el" came from "al"?

I came here wondering whether the Spanish article "el" came from the Arabic "al" but I'm none the wiser. Does anyone know? I also wonder whether that made its way to Italy in the form of "il". --Doradus (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the commonly accepted etymology is from Latin 'ille'. --Jotamar (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we are talking about spain we have to put in consideration who are the original people of spain and their language and how did these arabic words get to their vacabulary.

the truth is the moors come from moroco and they are not arab and their language is not arabic either.

I think u should examine the morocan arabic dialect fo the organ of the words along with classiacal arabic.

specially the word "el" means the. so you have to go and see how do morocan people say "al" arabic the in morocan dialect. I think they say "el" not "al" and I beleve that is why they say it this way in spannish.

so yes as you can see, it comes from arabic "al" not latin ille which is not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vb4ever (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) --Vb4ever (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Check this: [3]. --Belchman (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this source it is Arabic in Origin: Diccionario de la lengua castellana : en que se explica el verdadero sentido de las voces ... / compuesto por la Real Academia Española ; Tomo primero Published 1726 "Al is an article (part of speech) in the Arabic language that corresponds to our el, la y los, masculine and feminine, singular and plural because the Arabs use Al with names and numbers of both genders without distinction." BuhayPinoy (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: AL and El -Sorry I was iresponsible,i.e., did not do a thorough research before I spoke. Al, according to the same book above, is Arabic as attached to words like Algodon, Alfiler but the pronoun El is from Latin word Ille see 'Diccionario de la lengua castellana : en que se explica el verdadero sentido de las voces ... / compuesto por la Real Academia Española ; Tomo tercero, que contiene las letras D, E, F Published: 1732' Is there a corresponding Latin word for THE?BuhayPinoy (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have recently reverted the introductory section of the article to how it has stood for ages in a form which was pretty neutral and balanced. I hadn't checked it for a while but it seemed completely denatured or destructured by attempts to minimize the arabic influence on the language. Not that I want the contrary POV to be pushed (no need to mention that Spanish is the most arabized european language or go on compare it with influences from other languages etc...). It just reads badly and smells of edit war, which is sad because I really liked this article, especially the way the rationale for inclusion has been developed and maintained so consistently. I especially didnt like the bit on "que dios le guarde" and "hidalgo" in the first few lines, definitely not the right place to refer to specific examples.

I think Jotamar and Belchman are largely responsible for keeping this article in check at the moment, I hope you agree.

G

Modern Spanish is not some sort of modern creole ("fusion") of Old Spanish and Mozarabic, even if there was a substantial influence. Readers should be informed that the high point of Arabic word use in Spanish was in the late medieval period (hardly surprising and so much for the theory of "fusion" that is modern Spanish), that Arabic word usage has declined greatly since then (even if that influence is still important), and that Mozarabic was a set of Latin dialects, albeit, heavily influenced by Arabic.

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary

I am removing the list because this is not some sort of cut down dictionary.Provocateur (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What this article should be or should not be, is not your private business. Major changes in an article must be discussed in advance. --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted my own revert but as the article stands, it is playing the roles of an encyclopedia and a dictionary. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and for this reason the list of words must be removed. The list of words contradicts the policy of the Wikipedia and sets a bad precedent.Provocateur (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an extensive list is out of place in WP. However, a list that is fairly representative and REFERENCED (how do I know any of those words without one is actually Arabic in origin?) is more than appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline seems to be consistently misunderstood by most editors. It's about not creating a new page for each possible word, because an encyclopaedia is about subjects, not about words. There is nothing in that guideline against word lists inside particular pages, as long as the subject justifies them. Of course there are alternatives, such as a new annex, that I'm ready to discuss collaboratively. --Jotamar (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The list would be significantly pared, and not require a new page, simply by enforcing the reliable source policy for inclusion.MartinezMD (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the point in trimming the list. What's so wrong about it? --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I already mentioned, it's not referenced. Anyone could put a word in there and say it's Arabic-based when it is not. Also, if 8% of Spanish words are Arabic-based, you'd need 10 pages to list all of them. MartinezMD (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

95% of Wikipedia is not referenced. And yes, anyone could put a fake word in there and that's why I have this page in my watchlist and I check changes in the list. I cannot guarantee that there aren't a couple of bad entries, but most of them look correct. For example, I remember I got suspicious about the entry atacar, only to find out that there are 2 different atacar verbs in Spanish, one of them, less common, with an Arabic etymology. About listing all possible words, I've never favoured that, but I also see no reason to destroy the work already done. --Jotamar (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Arabic influence on Spanish is a question that many people find interesting, either out of simple curiosity, or with real academic motivations. It deserves a nice page on Wikipedia. But the influence is mainly (and close to exclusively) of a lexical kind. Therefore, if this page didn't list individual words, it would become much less useful that it is now. For this reason, I'm against an indiscriminate reduction of the list, let alone a deletion of it! --Jotamar (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have less of a philosophical argument about the list as I do about the simple veracity. I can't count on you to be there to correct the list, and many of the words listed simply to do not say what the original Arabic word was. The list needs to be correct, verifiably, and then we can debate the merits of length. MartinezMD (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete this page or trim the number of entries. It is extremely interesting, is clearly the product of a lot of hard work and seems to have been managed very well, with only positive contributions and little dispute. Also I do not see the number of words having grown considerably over the past couple of years. --190.29.36.250 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Inception? Real languages are not Incepted

Only artificial languages like Esperanto have an "inception" or are "born" at or around a certain point in time. Castilian did not suddenly appear in the eighth century or the seventh century or the sixth century or the ninth century or the tenth, - these were just stages in a very long evolution of a Latin dialect that had become isolated from the common (vulgar) Latin after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. Good historians understand that - only popular and bad historians don't - they're always looking for nice and neat starting or cut off dates or periods for everything, but living languages don't work like that. Just because the oldest surviving written fragments or hints of a distinctly identifiable dialect date back to a certain time doesnt mean it came into existance around that time, all it means is that the County of Castile was becoming sophisticated enough to start using this idiom of mountain people like shephards, hunters and peasants, in written documents but you can be guaranteed that it had existed as a distinct spoken idiom for a very long time before that happened.

Ok what you say is true and your edits are good. But I think the point was that castellano has been in contact/influenced by arabic since it can be considered a separate language/dialect with characteristics which are recognizable today. Thus the term "inception" which wanted to make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.251.117 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary

The list of words section is contrary to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It should be removed.Provocateur (talk)

You have already made the same statement in the section This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, where it was adressed by me and other editors. You should discuss the points raised in that section, instead of just repeating the heading. Jotamar (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This list is really irritating and overloads the article. I propose a neutral solution: we'll copy-paste the list to List of Arabic loanwords in Spanish.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The list is the core of the article, the rest of the article is little more than decoration. Jotamar (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The first part of the article belongs as it is a general description of how Arabic came to influence Spanish. On the other hand the list is effectively a dictionary. This sets a bad example and the rules are clear that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Provocateur (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary again. It doesn't say anything about word lists, it just states which words can work as entries for whole articles. Jotamar (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bold font

Why are some of the listed words in bold font and others not? Is this something purposeful or simply an inconsistency in the format? MartinezMD (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess that whoever started the list marked in bold those words that were already done. It's not really harmful for the page. Jotamar (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sick

I would add "Mareado = sick, from the Arabic word مريض (ma-ridh) which means the same." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.178.73 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mareado, which means dizzy not sick, comes from Mar / sea. Nothing to do with arabic. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Split the list of Spanish words in Arabic origin into a new article

It is too long to put those into this article. --Mahogany115 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?Asilah1981 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Arabic language influence on the Spanish language/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I assessed the importance as "Mid" based on this, and the quality as C-class based on the fact that this lengthy article only has four inline citations. I realize that this is not a terribly strong justification, and that the structure of the article might make inline citations cumbersome, so if you disagree, please feel free to upgrade the rating. --Doradus (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rv Jotamar

User:Jotamar I reverted you because: Navarre is already included in the historical region of Basque country, Aragon has Arabic names right up to the Pyrenees (e.g. Almudevar, Alquezar) and Arabic names are absent in most of Catalonia, except on the Aragonese border (Alfarràs, Almenar, Alguaire, Alcanó, Almatret, Aldover) i.e. mainly in western Lleida.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Again going with your own perceptions. From Alquézar to the French border there is an area as big as Asturias or Navarre. Just check a map. About Catalonia, check this: Toponímia d'origen islàmic a la catalunya vella. And about Navarre, why should it be included in a purely imagined political entity? The autonomous community is the effective existing administrative unit. So I revert. --Jotamar (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jotamar that is a good source. I stand corrected. And yes you are right about not using the concept of Euskal Herria, I guess. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jotamar I just read your source thoroughly and realized that this source you use does not support your opinion and it doesn't contradict my original perception. This study you presented is limited to Catalunya Vella which does not include Lleida, which was part of (Al Andalus until 1149) or much of Tarragona. What I had originally written was correct. Here is the source which supports my original edit. https://www.onomastica.cat/sites/onomastica.cat/files/14_epalza.PDFAsilah1981 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks; so what are the changes that you propose for the page? --Jotamar (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

None, really. It's not that it matters that much. It was just a curiosity. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Melroross

Please stop. This article is very peaceful and is based on reliable academic sources. Give it a break and move on. There is no reason to edit war with Asqueladd and Jotamar.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One very common Spanish verb missing

Its "Arrebatar"!!! So many arabisms and no one included this one which is a very common Spanish word! I'm quite proud to have detected it. Can someone please include? Thanks.Filologo2 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently arrebatar comes from rebato, a word already included in the list. You are free to edit this or any other WP page yourself, preferably using reliable sources. Regards, --Jotamar (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also Rebatir, same etymology, completely different meaning. Both these words should be included.Filologo2 (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional source

Can be used in article. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2016/tfg_45415/TFG_2015-16_FTI_Khayat.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filologo2 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• It was written by someone that thinks that islam is a superior cultural group and it has a lot of words that are not arab in origin. It seems an islamist propaganda to me. --Tamazigh (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Henares

Althought the Spanish wikipedia seems to state that Henares comes from Heno, most academic sources agree this is a castilian reinterpretation of the Arabic an-nahr which means the river. It is discussed in depth in this thread. https://www.celtiberia.net/es/conocimientos/?idp=6187 --Php2000 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your source doesn't confirm at all the an-nahr theory, it rather casts doubts on it. Have you really read it? You should find a better source. --Jotamar (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the section that mentions Alcalá de Henares is just a list of examples. It's only logical that uncertain or controversial etymologies should be left out of the list. --Jotamar (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

VSO Order

The question of typologies such as sentence component order (VSO, SOV, etc.) doesn't seem to be well understood by most amateur linguists. Typology is just an instrument to try to understand how language is processed. Any random pair of languages can have typological parallels, but that doesn't really mean that much.

In the case of Arabic influence on Spanish, it's obvious that such an influence in word order would appear after comparing Spanish with its closest relatives. There is abolutely no reason why Spanish should behave as any other language just because that other language is also classified as SVO. The mention in this page of any non-Romance European language is completely out of place. On the other hand, inside the Romance languages, French is famously very divergent in word order, as in virtually all grammatical points. A comparison with Italian and the other languages of Italy, such as Venetian, Neapolitan or Sicilian, should be helpful, but unfortunately I don't know any of those languages.

I also would like to know if the influence is just from classical Arabic, from the Semitic languages (including Hebrew and Phoenician?) or from the Afro-Asiatic family (including Berber languages?). It's worth repeating that all modern dialects of Arabic are SVO not VSO; I know this from several different sources and it shouldn't be difficult to source. --Jotamar (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another obscure point: is VSO more common just in Spanish or also in all the Iberian Romance languages? --Jotamar (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Jotamar answering your points:

Dialectical Arabic allows for both SVO and VSO sentence structures. Even if SVO is overall more common, there are no rules on this matter so the situation is similar to modern Spanish. Written Modern Standard Arabic is VSO.

There are very few language groups which allow for VSO so I don't see why mentioning this is "out of place".

I don't see the problem here. We mention that Spanish is among the few languages in the world where VSO structures are prevalent and that this has been argued to be due to Semitic (Arabic or Carthaginian) influence on the language. No source points to a Celtic influence, I presume because the way VSO works in Welsh and such languages is different. But I don't know. Maybe some source out there argues this.

As for other Iberian languages, Basque is an SOV language although it also allows for SVO. Portuguese VSO structures are less common than Spanish. Catalan and the like I'm not sure but the point is moot since they are very influenced by Spanish, particularly in their modern urban variety.

As to your final question. We must assume that when a source argues a "semitic origin" in the context of the Spanish language, it is referring to Arabic. It is unlikely that they would be referring to Phoenician, Hebrew or Carthaginian.

I think you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. --Php2000 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

First surprise: so the editor from IP 79.153.124.157 is you? Ok, that simplifies the discussion.

Do you speak Portuguese? Because I don't, so you might have an advantage there. However, what we need is not the intuition of a speaker, but a reliable source, otherwise we could easily end up doing original research of the worst kind.

So, yes, the question is simple: we need more sources. --Jotamar (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so far the only ones I can find are Heinrich Kuen (who I presume was the first to propose an Arabic influence) and Rafael Lapesa. There may be more which discuss it, I would have to have a look around.

I get by in Portuguese, enough to disagree with Lapesa when he says "Spanish and Portuguese". I don't think its as common to speak in VSO in Portuguese as we do in Spanish, where (at least in my case) it is the most common sentence structure. As an example, I don't think it is common for us to say "tu hermano me ha dicho que vengas". Typically we say "me ha dicho tu hermano que vengas". I tried using google regarding portuguese and typed "falou você com ele" - the equivalent of "hablaste tu con el. Even as an inversion caused by stress, nothing shows up in Portuguese which confirms my suspicions that Castilian is particularly prone to VSO compared to other Iberian languages.

Regardless, it is just a theory. We can just mention it as a possible origin of this peculiarity without getting into too much detail. Php2000 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---

I was trying to conduct this discussion in a civil way, but user:Php2000 is making that almost impossible. He (or she) insists on tailoring the wording of the section The Verb–subject–object sentence structure to his own likings, even though he has proven again and again in this discussion and his edit summaries to lack even a very basic knowledge of linguistics. In more detail:

• He (or she) deletes my introduction about the nature of word order in Spanish (and other languages), not even bothering to ask for a source, a source that certainly must exist, even though finding it could be quite time-consuming.
• He insists that Romance languages other than Spanish and Portuguese don't allow for VSO orders, something that not only is false, but also the opposite is clearly implied in the source he claims to be using: en español y portugués el verbo precede al sujeto con mas frecuencia que en otras lenguas romances (that is, just more frequently). Incidentally, I speak an Occitano-Romance language, Catalan, and of course VSO sentences do exist in it.
• He tries to conceal part of the information in the only source he has added: that while Spanish written texts from the 13th century can be analysed as having an unmarked VSO order, that is not true of Spanish texts posterior to that time.
• In exchange for all this, the user is not providing any useful information, other than the source about 13th-century Spanish.

In sum, the aforementioned user seems to have some sort of agenda about how the Spanish language should be portrayed in WP. Given the nature of his editions, I see no real possibility of compromising, and therefore my only resource left is reverting. --Jotamar (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Two ways to be civil:

1) Not to talk to me in third person

2) Not to accuse me of having an agenda.

I do not agree with your paragraph because it is a) a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and b) is inherently illogical and self contradictory.

As any speaker of French, Romanian, Italian etc will tell you VSO word order does not exist in French, Italian, Romanian etc. It is not "mildly less frequent" as you seem to try to imply, it is simply absent. I don't know about Catalan but if they exist it is no doubt through Spanish influence, which is pervasive in the language. In Spanish, there is no possible sentence where you cannot use a VSO word order - this is a unique element of the language among not just Romance languages but all European languages. We don't have to write this in the article, but at least acknowledge this fact as a basis for discussions.

What I find most difficult to understand from your editing is your beginning paragraph about "Romance languages being governed by focalization and this explains their flexibility why all structures are possible". All structures are not possible in Romance structures and so focalization can't explain something that isn't true. In fact they are extremely inflexible and that is why VSO sentence structure is almost universally impossible - except in Spanish. Php2000 (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My starting paragraph is 100% sourceable, as I've already said; it's just that finding a good source for it won't be easy, and frankly finding it is not one of my priorities right now. It is something that I know for sure, because I have studied it at some point in my life, and if I know something for sure I include it wherever it's relevant in WP. If you don't believe it, a Citation Needed tag is the standard way to settle the question.

Talking about WP:OR ... are you suddenly an expert in Italian and Romanian? Do you know speakers of those languages and discuss pragmatics with them? Very hard to believe. If you have sources for your claims about the weirdness of Spanish, please share them with us.

"... and this explains their flexibility why all structures are possible" ?? I've never written that.

Let's take this example: me ha dicho tu hermano que vengas. This sentence is not VSO, it's OVS: me is the object. Let's analyse it anyway. If A is the speaker, B is the listener, and C is the brother of B, we can deduce that A meets C regularly, or at least A often meets C by chance, for instance if they live in a small town; we also deduce that B knows that. Because A speaking with C is not new or unexpected, that information is not emphasised, while the really new information is fronted and the rest is left for later. If A had met C out of the blue in a completely unexpected setting, A wouldn't say his sentence that way. All that is topicalization, a very complex pragmatic phenomenon about which by the way I'm not claiming to be an expert. It's also worth saying that topicalization is even more complex in languages with relatively free word order, such as the Romance languages. I could go on with similar examples but I'm afraid that would be a waste of my time, so I'll leave it at that for now. --Jotamar (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok I'm not going to spend more time on this either. Just please try to give some internal coherency, brevity and relevance to the text. I still don't see the need for the initial paragraph. Php2000 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed

There is huge amount of misinformation in this article. A huge amount of the data is wrong and not referenced. Most of the words mentioned in this article are no longer used and that should be noted. The list supplied, to me is like an unknown language as more than 95% of the words are unknown to a majority of Spanish speakers. It is like saying that mater is Spanish word as we used to speak Latin. I also find it interesting that a non-Arabic root is considered Arabic as it entered Spanish via Andalusi but a word that entered via Latin is not considered Latin if it has an Andalusi root (eg. Algebra entered via Latin). --Loaiza12 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Algebra" is late Latin, that is, an artificial kind of Latin which was used in the Middle Ages as a general language for most writings, but which was no longer spoken. The relevant origin of the word is whatever it was before that phase. --Jotamar (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Most words in the list are in the DRAE, therefore they are sourceable. I personally went through part of the list checking this, and marked with Cn those that don't appear in that dictionary. Of course I've also never heard many words in the list, but one cannot be sure about whether they're still used in some corner of the vast Spanish-speaking world. --Jotamar (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Documents ascribed to documents"?

The first documents written in a language with some features specific of modern Spanish are ascribed to a number of documents from various monasteries in the area of Burgos and La Rioja...

I think this meant the first examples of a language, which were ascribed to those documents. I've edited the article accordingly—pero si estoy equivocada, siéntase libre de corregir mi corrección. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jotamar (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)