![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also Talk:Galician-Portuguese language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeS ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It says in the beggining of the text, that Mirandese came from Galician-Portuguese, which is not true, it's an Astur-Leonese. You don't have to look for too long to confirm this. I'm taking the liberty to correct it.
User:McKagan —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
This is a comment on a piece of information recently added to the article:
According to Ethnologue there are 15 000 speakers of Galician in the Portuguese region of Trás-os-Montes; these Portuguese speakers of Galician were not influenced by the Castillian language, they are considered in Portugal as speakers of Portuguese.
I have never heard of such a thing, although it's true that Ethnologue claims it.
I think they've let the peculiar characteristics of the Portuguese dialects spoken in northern Portugal confuse them (not surprising, considering they aren't even able to spell Trás-os-Montes properly). In that part of the border, there is a dialect continuum. But I don't think there is any objective criterium by which they could claim some Portuguese are "really" speaking Galician. The opposite could just as easily be argued. FilipeS 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree: it's an amazing claim. Dialect continuum is the right word for it Ripcohen 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an illusion. I've observed again and again that foreigners also have their biases in these issues. Perhaps it's impossible not to have one. Anyway, thanks for the contributions. Regards. FilipeS 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not an illusion. I am a philologist; my analysis of these matters has nothing to do with loyalty to Portugal or to Galicia (Spain), etc. Please don't sing me the tune about the impossibility of complete objectivity -- I heard it long ago, and I agree. This is another matter. We can ask, for instance: 'is there any significant difference between texts by Galician and Portuguese authors in the cancioneiros?' (And of course one can argue that there was a levelling when the text was copied). Or we can ask: 'is Ramon Lorenzo right to insist that there was already a split in 13th cent. prose?' Or: 'are the Cantigas de Santa Maria written in 'pure' Galician?' At the root of these questions there is an ignorance of historical linguistics. The alleged differences are utterly trivial compared to, say, the differences in ancient Greek dialects (yes, that's my remark in the text of the article and it's based on my reading of ancient Greek texts). At most therefore we could talk about 'different dialects' of GP. There are not two languages in the 13th century. If you care to argue that one, let me know on what grounds!
The first metion of the language spoken in the NW of the Iberian Peninsula, Florian, is dated around 1290 and it was written by Jofre de Foixà : "si tu vols far un cantar en frances, no·s tayn que·y mescles proençal ne cicilia ne gallego ne altre lengatge que sia strayn a aquell". Now, I find it fascianting that a self-appointed linguist like you says "So 'Galician-Portuguese' is redundant: as a branch of Western Romance, it should simply be called "Portuguese", and as a medieval language, "Old Portuguese" (with slight internal dialectal variation, maybe; though I can't find any clear evidence that modern dialect features and isoglosses – including those that characterise Galician – were already present in the 13th century)"... even before Portugal existed. Yet in 1290 a well know troubadour calls the language "gallego" (Mind, Portugal already existed for some decades then). You either lack a deep knowledge of sociolinguistics or are terribly biased for some unknown reason. Or maybe both. I also find fascinating that you mention that Galician is a Northern Portuguese dialect. Do some gymnastics and try to apply the same geopolitical criteria to Southern German dialects: why do not we say that Bayern is a "Swiss dialect" since Switzerland is independent and Baviera is not? It makes as little sense as your knowledge of sociolinguistics and "Romanistik". If you would be versed in either Galician or Portuguese, you would realize that certain particularities of Galician show an earlier stage of evolution. For example, if you know Galician you do not hesitate making the plurals of words ending in -ção in Portuguese, as Galician shows the previous stage -on / -an. Let me give you a piece of advice: speak about what you know. But if I remember well, that is what someone has already pointed out to you when you were a student back in the day ;) -- 2A01:C22:A84D:9F00:8002:B68C:3674:9BD3 ( talk) 13:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Gailician-Portuguese is today an endangered culture and much work is being done to keep alive the endangered oral traditions.
-Have a look at the following websites:
Ega 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. This page is about Galician-Portuguese, the language. If you wish to write about a Galician-Portuguese culture, I think you should start a new article, or perhaps mention it at the articles about Portugal and Galicia (Spain). FilipeS Regards. 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Language part of culture?! What an amazing idea.
On the early documents cited from late XII please see Ivo Castro, Introducao a Historia do Portugues. Geografia da Lingua. Portugues Antigo. (Lisbon: Colibri, 2004), pp. 121-125 (with references).
(can somebody please put in cedilha and accents?!)
It has been claimed that the NotÃcia de fiadores, written in 1175, is the oldest known document written in Galician-Portuguese, but scholars have rightly criticized this classification.
What they show is that scribes were trying to transcribe their vernacular language by the latter part of the 12th century.
Both these documents, however, are written partly in Late Latin (for example: Ego... facio a tibi ...[...]... ut non intret...[...]...super vostros homines... [in the Pacto]), with no more than names, words and small sections in Galician-Portuguese.
I have been civil if sometimes ironic. And you? I have put a list of references on the main page: I understand you want everything referenced, but it seems to me you haven't held yourself to that standard nor have others.
Consider this statement:
"It was spoken at first from the Bay of Biscay to the Douro River, but it expanded South with the Christian Reconquest."
Where is the source for this? And the same is true for most of the statements in the article. This was a wretched piece of 'work' when I found it many months ago. I have spent hours eliminating errors and making small additions and improvements. It seems that you only objected when I took on what seems to be one of your pet topics (the earliest documents in the langauge). What about Norman P. Sacks, The Latinity of Dated Documents in the Portuguese Territory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1941) and Roger Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982)? Why have you not cited those and other works?
Wikipedia articles are NOT normally scholarly articles. They often have no footnotes. Certainly this one does not have any. And according to the rules, they cannot contain any original scholarly contributions. That's certainly playing it safe!
I have said that certain documents (so cherished by some) are written mainly or more than partly in Latin. I need a source to say what is Latin?
With all due respect, your attitude smacks of pedantry. You would rather keep religiously to (your interpretation of) the rules of Wikipedia than to have a better article.
I am trying to play by the rules and have now cited dozens of references (manuscripts, historical grammars, critical editions, and works on the history of the period specifically bearing on poetry, but with reference to some early prose documents) where before there were none. Where are your references?
Your position on 'sources' leads to an absurd conclusion: if Ivo Castro (or anyone else) publishes a horrendous error on, say, a matter of historical phonology, you would prefer to see the published mistake here rather than to have a correct but unsourced or unpublished account of the same sound change ?!. RC
Whether you call it "A.D." or "C.E.", you still have a Christian "bias", as you're still using a date with a Christian significance from which to start counting years. Perhaps you should write all the dates according to the Islamic calendar. That would really get rid of the Christian bias. FilipeS 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no year "O" (I suppose you meant "0") in the "Western" calendar (currently also used in many other places, too). FilipeS 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Filipe: CEM is poetry of insult, not satire. Satire is like Horace's satires. Insult is like his epodes. One is general, the other specific. CEM are the latter. 87.74.1.27 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Please name one author who regularly calls any of what Horace wrote "personal insults". FilipeS 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the word "insult" is ever used. It's whether saying "satire" instead would be wrong. The way you brushed it aside, one would think that "personal insult" was some philological technical term. But that's not what I'm getting from our conversation. If Horace's "personal insults" can be called "satire" in polite discourse, why not the cantigas de escárnio e mal-dizer?
But most CEM are exactly that: crude and disrespectful! I would recommend an essay of Paul Veyne on this, but must find the reference. 137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Paul Veyne, “O folclore em Roma e os direitos da consciência pública sobre a conduta individual†in A Sociedade Romana (Lisboa: Edições 70, 1990), pp. 197-225 (originally published in French in Latomus, xlii [1983]: 3-30). 137.73.58.204 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Also, I see that you've rephrased your change to "mainly poetry of scorn, mockery and insult". Why use three words that mean practically the same? Wouldn't one be enough? FilipeS 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I certainly would. But I don't intend to contribute to the article on Horace. 137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Pliny reports that the 6th century BC poet Hipponax wrote satirae that were so cruel that the offended hanged themselves.[6] The confusion with the satyr supported the understanding of satire as biting, like Juvenal, and not mild, like Horace, method of criticism in Early Modern Europe until the 17th century.
There are examples of satire from the Early Middle Ages, especially songs by goliards or vagants now best known as an anthology called Carmina Burana and made famous as texts of a composition by the 20th century composer Carl Orff. Satirical poetry is believed to have been popular, although little has survived.
I don't think I ever claimed to be the final arbitrer on anything. Calm down.
One thing I will say, though: what I have to say, I say out here where every one can see it. I don't go and surrepticiously trash other users' talk pages. FilipeS 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me is that being a linguist (which I fully respect: some of my best friends are linguists...) and obviously not a specialist either in philology or poetry, you adopt so arrogant a tone on topics which are apparently well beyond your ken. I tracked down several references (in Roman, Visigothic, and Iberian law) so that you could see that 'insult' is indeed a technical term, and you brushed them all aside and told me that literature is not law (thanks). Well, in fact there is a very close relationship between legal strictures on insults and literary insults, at least in the ancient and medieval literature I've been discussing. And there is no shame in never having read Archilochus or Hipponax, etc., but if I cite you the latest and best scholarship on these poets, don't cite me a pathetic Wikipedia article on 'satire'. It doesn't say much for the level of your curiosity. 137.73.58.204 13:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer ("songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainly satirical poetry directed at named individuals).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer (
"songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainlysatiricalpoetry of insult and mockery directed at named individuals).
I'd go with that. Here’s what Giulia Lanciani & Giuseppe Tavani, 'A Cantiga de Escarnho e Maldizer' (Lisboa: Colibri, 1998) have to say : “e até a denominação "poesia satÃrica" , modernamente usada por alguns estudiosos, não presta justiça à complexidade de um sector no qual são obrigados a conviver, contra a sua vontade, géneros tão diversos como a invectiva pessoal … “ ... etc. (p. 7), and they go on to mention (inter alia) social satire, political sirventes, literary debates, parody, ‘turpiloquio’. How about "a designation which includes a wide variety of genres from personal invective to poetic parody, social satire, and literary debate"? (Laments over the death of famous people are found in the MSS but clearly don’t fit the heading CEM.)
I quote from the article: "It was first spoken in the area between the Bay of Biscay and the Douro River, but it expanded South with the Christian Reconquest". This seems to me like a quite bold statement. The south limit is correct, but Bay of Biscay?. -- Miguel Branco ( talk) 10:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, messieurs - so, the Old Portuguese/Galician-Portuguese article does mention (without a source) the consonant phonemes used in the medieval forms; however, it would be nice if:
Just some tips. -- Daniel Blanchette 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am not entirely sure what the text below is menat to contribute. Perhaps the writer did not complete it, bringing in some or other language point to the statement. "Two cities at the time of separation, Braga and Porto, were within the County of Portugal, and have remained within Portugal to this day. Further north, the cities of Lugo, A Coruña and the great mediaeval centre of Santiago de Compostela, remained within Galicia." Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Galician-Portuguese. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galician-Portuguese. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also Talk:Galician-Portuguese language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeS ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It says in the beggining of the text, that Mirandese came from Galician-Portuguese, which is not true, it's an Astur-Leonese. You don't have to look for too long to confirm this. I'm taking the liberty to correct it.
User:McKagan —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
This is a comment on a piece of information recently added to the article:
According to Ethnologue there are 15 000 speakers of Galician in the Portuguese region of Trás-os-Montes; these Portuguese speakers of Galician were not influenced by the Castillian language, they are considered in Portugal as speakers of Portuguese.
I have never heard of such a thing, although it's true that Ethnologue claims it.
I think they've let the peculiar characteristics of the Portuguese dialects spoken in northern Portugal confuse them (not surprising, considering they aren't even able to spell Trás-os-Montes properly). In that part of the border, there is a dialect continuum. But I don't think there is any objective criterium by which they could claim some Portuguese are "really" speaking Galician. The opposite could just as easily be argued. FilipeS 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree: it's an amazing claim. Dialect continuum is the right word for it Ripcohen 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an illusion. I've observed again and again that foreigners also have their biases in these issues. Perhaps it's impossible not to have one. Anyway, thanks for the contributions. Regards. FilipeS 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not an illusion. I am a philologist; my analysis of these matters has nothing to do with loyalty to Portugal or to Galicia (Spain), etc. Please don't sing me the tune about the impossibility of complete objectivity -- I heard it long ago, and I agree. This is another matter. We can ask, for instance: 'is there any significant difference between texts by Galician and Portuguese authors in the cancioneiros?' (And of course one can argue that there was a levelling when the text was copied). Or we can ask: 'is Ramon Lorenzo right to insist that there was already a split in 13th cent. prose?' Or: 'are the Cantigas de Santa Maria written in 'pure' Galician?' At the root of these questions there is an ignorance of historical linguistics. The alleged differences are utterly trivial compared to, say, the differences in ancient Greek dialects (yes, that's my remark in the text of the article and it's based on my reading of ancient Greek texts). At most therefore we could talk about 'different dialects' of GP. There are not two languages in the 13th century. If you care to argue that one, let me know on what grounds!
The first metion of the language spoken in the NW of the Iberian Peninsula, Florian, is dated around 1290 and it was written by Jofre de Foixà : "si tu vols far un cantar en frances, no·s tayn que·y mescles proençal ne cicilia ne gallego ne altre lengatge que sia strayn a aquell". Now, I find it fascianting that a self-appointed linguist like you says "So 'Galician-Portuguese' is redundant: as a branch of Western Romance, it should simply be called "Portuguese", and as a medieval language, "Old Portuguese" (with slight internal dialectal variation, maybe; though I can't find any clear evidence that modern dialect features and isoglosses – including those that characterise Galician – were already present in the 13th century)"... even before Portugal existed. Yet in 1290 a well know troubadour calls the language "gallego" (Mind, Portugal already existed for some decades then). You either lack a deep knowledge of sociolinguistics or are terribly biased for some unknown reason. Or maybe both. I also find fascinating that you mention that Galician is a Northern Portuguese dialect. Do some gymnastics and try to apply the same geopolitical criteria to Southern German dialects: why do not we say that Bayern is a "Swiss dialect" since Switzerland is independent and Baviera is not? It makes as little sense as your knowledge of sociolinguistics and "Romanistik". If you would be versed in either Galician or Portuguese, you would realize that certain particularities of Galician show an earlier stage of evolution. For example, if you know Galician you do not hesitate making the plurals of words ending in -ção in Portuguese, as Galician shows the previous stage -on / -an. Let me give you a piece of advice: speak about what you know. But if I remember well, that is what someone has already pointed out to you when you were a student back in the day ;) -- 2A01:C22:A84D:9F00:8002:B68C:3674:9BD3 ( talk) 13:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Gailician-Portuguese is today an endangered culture and much work is being done to keep alive the endangered oral traditions.
-Have a look at the following websites:
Ega 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. This page is about Galician-Portuguese, the language. If you wish to write about a Galician-Portuguese culture, I think you should start a new article, or perhaps mention it at the articles about Portugal and Galicia (Spain). FilipeS Regards. 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Language part of culture?! What an amazing idea.
On the early documents cited from late XII please see Ivo Castro, Introducao a Historia do Portugues. Geografia da Lingua. Portugues Antigo. (Lisbon: Colibri, 2004), pp. 121-125 (with references).
(can somebody please put in cedilha and accents?!)
It has been claimed that the NotÃcia de fiadores, written in 1175, is the oldest known document written in Galician-Portuguese, but scholars have rightly criticized this classification.
What they show is that scribes were trying to transcribe their vernacular language by the latter part of the 12th century.
Both these documents, however, are written partly in Late Latin (for example: Ego... facio a tibi ...[...]... ut non intret...[...]...super vostros homines... [in the Pacto]), with no more than names, words and small sections in Galician-Portuguese.
I have been civil if sometimes ironic. And you? I have put a list of references on the main page: I understand you want everything referenced, but it seems to me you haven't held yourself to that standard nor have others.
Consider this statement:
"It was spoken at first from the Bay of Biscay to the Douro River, but it expanded South with the Christian Reconquest."
Where is the source for this? And the same is true for most of the statements in the article. This was a wretched piece of 'work' when I found it many months ago. I have spent hours eliminating errors and making small additions and improvements. It seems that you only objected when I took on what seems to be one of your pet topics (the earliest documents in the langauge). What about Norman P. Sacks, The Latinity of Dated Documents in the Portuguese Territory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1941) and Roger Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982)? Why have you not cited those and other works?
Wikipedia articles are NOT normally scholarly articles. They often have no footnotes. Certainly this one does not have any. And according to the rules, they cannot contain any original scholarly contributions. That's certainly playing it safe!
I have said that certain documents (so cherished by some) are written mainly or more than partly in Latin. I need a source to say what is Latin?
With all due respect, your attitude smacks of pedantry. You would rather keep religiously to (your interpretation of) the rules of Wikipedia than to have a better article.
I am trying to play by the rules and have now cited dozens of references (manuscripts, historical grammars, critical editions, and works on the history of the period specifically bearing on poetry, but with reference to some early prose documents) where before there were none. Where are your references?
Your position on 'sources' leads to an absurd conclusion: if Ivo Castro (or anyone else) publishes a horrendous error on, say, a matter of historical phonology, you would prefer to see the published mistake here rather than to have a correct but unsourced or unpublished account of the same sound change ?!. RC
Whether you call it "A.D." or "C.E.", you still have a Christian "bias", as you're still using a date with a Christian significance from which to start counting years. Perhaps you should write all the dates according to the Islamic calendar. That would really get rid of the Christian bias. FilipeS 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no year "O" (I suppose you meant "0") in the "Western" calendar (currently also used in many other places, too). FilipeS 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Filipe: CEM is poetry of insult, not satire. Satire is like Horace's satires. Insult is like his epodes. One is general, the other specific. CEM are the latter. 87.74.1.27 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Please name one author who regularly calls any of what Horace wrote "personal insults". FilipeS 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the word "insult" is ever used. It's whether saying "satire" instead would be wrong. The way you brushed it aside, one would think that "personal insult" was some philological technical term. But that's not what I'm getting from our conversation. If Horace's "personal insults" can be called "satire" in polite discourse, why not the cantigas de escárnio e mal-dizer?
But most CEM are exactly that: crude and disrespectful! I would recommend an essay of Paul Veyne on this, but must find the reference. 137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Paul Veyne, “O folclore em Roma e os direitos da consciência pública sobre a conduta individual†in A Sociedade Romana (Lisboa: Edições 70, 1990), pp. 197-225 (originally published in French in Latomus, xlii [1983]: 3-30). 137.73.58.204 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Also, I see that you've rephrased your change to "mainly poetry of scorn, mockery and insult". Why use three words that mean practically the same? Wouldn't one be enough? FilipeS 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I certainly would. But I don't intend to contribute to the article on Horace. 137.73.58.204 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)RC
Pliny reports that the 6th century BC poet Hipponax wrote satirae that were so cruel that the offended hanged themselves.[6] The confusion with the satyr supported the understanding of satire as biting, like Juvenal, and not mild, like Horace, method of criticism in Early Modern Europe until the 17th century.
There are examples of satire from the Early Middle Ages, especially songs by goliards or vagants now best known as an anthology called Carmina Burana and made famous as texts of a composition by the 20th century composer Carl Orff. Satirical poetry is believed to have been popular, although little has survived.
I don't think I ever claimed to be the final arbitrer on anything. Calm down.
One thing I will say, though: what I have to say, I say out here where every one can see it. I don't go and surrepticiously trash other users' talk pages. FilipeS 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me is that being a linguist (which I fully respect: some of my best friends are linguists...) and obviously not a specialist either in philology or poetry, you adopt so arrogant a tone on topics which are apparently well beyond your ken. I tracked down several references (in Roman, Visigothic, and Iberian law) so that you could see that 'insult' is indeed a technical term, and you brushed them all aside and told me that literature is not law (thanks). Well, in fact there is a very close relationship between legal strictures on insults and literary insults, at least in the ancient and medieval literature I've been discussing. And there is no shame in never having read Archilochus or Hipponax, etc., but if I cite you the latest and best scholarship on these poets, don't cite me a pathetic Wikipedia article on 'satire'. It doesn't say much for the level of your curiosity. 137.73.58.204 13:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer ("songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainly satirical poetry directed at named individuals).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).The main secular poetic genres were the cantigas d'amor (male-voiced love lyric), the cantigas d'amigo (female-voiced love lyric) and the cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer (
"songs of mockery and badmouthing", mainlysatiricalpoetry of insult and mockery directed at named individuals).
I'd go with that. Here’s what Giulia Lanciani & Giuseppe Tavani, 'A Cantiga de Escarnho e Maldizer' (Lisboa: Colibri, 1998) have to say : “e até a denominação "poesia satÃrica" , modernamente usada por alguns estudiosos, não presta justiça à complexidade de um sector no qual são obrigados a conviver, contra a sua vontade, géneros tão diversos como a invectiva pessoal … “ ... etc. (p. 7), and they go on to mention (inter alia) social satire, political sirventes, literary debates, parody, ‘turpiloquio’. How about "a designation which includes a wide variety of genres from personal invective to poetic parody, social satire, and literary debate"? (Laments over the death of famous people are found in the MSS but clearly don’t fit the heading CEM.)
I quote from the article: "It was first spoken in the area between the Bay of Biscay and the Douro River, but it expanded South with the Christian Reconquest". This seems to me like a quite bold statement. The south limit is correct, but Bay of Biscay?. -- Miguel Branco ( talk) 10:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, messieurs - so, the Old Portuguese/Galician-Portuguese article does mention (without a source) the consonant phonemes used in the medieval forms; however, it would be nice if:
Just some tips. -- Daniel Blanchette 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am not entirely sure what the text below is menat to contribute. Perhaps the writer did not complete it, bringing in some or other language point to the statement. "Two cities at the time of separation, Braga and Porto, were within the County of Portugal, and have remained within Portugal to this day. Further north, the cities of Lugo, A Coruña and the great mediaeval centre of Santiago de Compostela, remained within Galicia." Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Galician-Portuguese. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galician-Portuguese. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)