Romansh language is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CCVul.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
When did people start spelling the name of the language in this fundamentally un-English way? As far as I can discover there are no native English words at all that end in "nsh" (the Yiddish "mensh" surely doesn't count, being a transliteration from Hebrew letters - and anyway even that's often spelled "mensch"). I've always known the language as "Romanche". Of course that's its French name, and perhaps someone wanted to get away from that - but then why not "Romanch" without the French "e"? English has plenty of common words ending in "nch", such as "French", "ranch", "inch" and "lunch" - there may be a hint of a "t" sound in there too, but that's a more faithful echo of the name in the language itself, which ends in "tsch" whichever variant you use (and the "t" is audible there). Whenever I see "Romansh", I think "Oops, typo!"
I hope no-one's going to say "this is how the Lia Rumantscha/the Swiss government/whoever wants it to be spelled in English", for non-English-language bodies are simply not entitled to make up words in a language that is not their own. This is a problem I frequently encounter as an English translator in Holland - Dutch organisations repeatedly make up ungrammatical or misspelled English names for themselves, and unfortunately Wikipedia repeatedly copies them as they stand, on the "grounds" that "this is what the Dutch want us to call it". I'm sorry, but Dutch people's English really isn't all it's cracked up to be, and they should have it checked first. There's already far too much unidiomatic (i.e. mangled) English on Wikipedia and the web generally, and we shouldn't be adding to it! 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 15:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
§ Rumantsch Grischun contains the following sentence:
Whatever this is, it isn't grammatical English. What is the meaning of
?
I have tried to figure out the likeliest intended meaning, and accordingly have changed the sentence to
"[W]hat would happen with those municipalities..." is not nearly so specific as "... in those municipalities..." and could imply that some higher authority would do something to them. "In" is exact and accurate.
Without "that",
is most easily read as a clause, able to stand on its own as a sentence, with "those municipalities" as subject:
But that clause can't be integrated into the rest of the sentence.
Without the comma I have added, "as" seems to go with "introduce", so
would mean "completely refused to make R.G. be the language of schooling". But that reading, like the one described just above, can't be integrated with the rest of the sentence. This problem is largely due to the ambiguity of "as", which I believe here means "since, because"; so I have changed that word as well as introducing a comma to separate this reason-clause from the clause with "introduce".
-- Thnidu ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Is Romansh a pro-drop language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.32.154 ( talk) 11:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there evidence that cudesch, 'book', is derived from Latin codex? If so, shouldn't that be stated in the Latin stock section? GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 08:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the article Romansh people is by large only discussing the language issue despite existing since 2008, it makes no sense to keep updated two articles about the same subject. Therefore, I propose to merge it into this article, about the Romansh language. –– ZH8000 ( talk) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction of the article one can read: "About 28% of the Romansh-speaking people in the Romansh-speaking areas also speak one other language fluently, e.g. German or Italian, which are the other official languages of Grisons.[11]"
Reading this I thought that it meant there are plenty of monolingual Romansh speakers out there, but further down the article it's written that nowadays only pre-school children are monolingual Romansh speakers.
Can someone clarify this please? -- Spafky ( talk) 11:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ 2607:FB91:880D:541C:F8DD:E8A4:C78E:6FB9 ( talk) 04:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Romansh language is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CCVul.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
When did people start spelling the name of the language in this fundamentally un-English way? As far as I can discover there are no native English words at all that end in "nsh" (the Yiddish "mensh" surely doesn't count, being a transliteration from Hebrew letters - and anyway even that's often spelled "mensch"). I've always known the language as "Romanche". Of course that's its French name, and perhaps someone wanted to get away from that - but then why not "Romanch" without the French "e"? English has plenty of common words ending in "nch", such as "French", "ranch", "inch" and "lunch" - there may be a hint of a "t" sound in there too, but that's a more faithful echo of the name in the language itself, which ends in "tsch" whichever variant you use (and the "t" is audible there). Whenever I see "Romansh", I think "Oops, typo!"
I hope no-one's going to say "this is how the Lia Rumantscha/the Swiss government/whoever wants it to be spelled in English", for non-English-language bodies are simply not entitled to make up words in a language that is not their own. This is a problem I frequently encounter as an English translator in Holland - Dutch organisations repeatedly make up ungrammatical or misspelled English names for themselves, and unfortunately Wikipedia repeatedly copies them as they stand, on the "grounds" that "this is what the Dutch want us to call it". I'm sorry, but Dutch people's English really isn't all it's cracked up to be, and they should have it checked first. There's already far too much unidiomatic (i.e. mangled) English on Wikipedia and the web generally, and we shouldn't be adding to it! 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 15:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
§ Rumantsch Grischun contains the following sentence:
Whatever this is, it isn't grammatical English. What is the meaning of
?
I have tried to figure out the likeliest intended meaning, and accordingly have changed the sentence to
"[W]hat would happen with those municipalities..." is not nearly so specific as "... in those municipalities..." and could imply that some higher authority would do something to them. "In" is exact and accurate.
Without "that",
is most easily read as a clause, able to stand on its own as a sentence, with "those municipalities" as subject:
But that clause can't be integrated into the rest of the sentence.
Without the comma I have added, "as" seems to go with "introduce", so
would mean "completely refused to make R.G. be the language of schooling". But that reading, like the one described just above, can't be integrated with the rest of the sentence. This problem is largely due to the ambiguity of "as", which I believe here means "since, because"; so I have changed that word as well as introducing a comma to separate this reason-clause from the clause with "introduce".
-- Thnidu ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Is Romansh a pro-drop language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.32.154 ( talk) 11:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there evidence that cudesch, 'book', is derived from Latin codex? If so, shouldn't that be stated in the Latin stock section? GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 08:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the article Romansh people is by large only discussing the language issue despite existing since 2008, it makes no sense to keep updated two articles about the same subject. Therefore, I propose to merge it into this article, about the Romansh language. –– ZH8000 ( talk) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction of the article one can read: "About 28% of the Romansh-speaking people in the Romansh-speaking areas also speak one other language fluently, e.g. German or Italian, which are the other official languages of Grisons.[11]"
Reading this I thought that it meant there are plenty of monolingual Romansh speakers out there, but further down the article it's written that nowadays only pre-school children are monolingual Romansh speakers.
Can someone clarify this please? -- Spafky ( talk) 11:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ 2607:FB91:880D:541C:F8DD:E8A4:C78E:6FB9 ( talk) 04:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)