Content deleted Content added
Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) re:FilipeS |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Langlit}} |
|||
{{featured}} |
|||
{{Mainpage date|October 27|2004}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Portugal|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|||
{{User:Ckamaeleon/Spoken Wikipedia In Progress (no request)|Joaopais|2005-08-23}} |
|||
{{FAOL|German|de:Portugiesische Sprache}} |
|||
{{Portuguese selected|article}} |
|||
{{WPCD}} |
|||
''For past discussions, see: [[Talk:Portuguese language/archive1|/archive1]], [[Talk:Portuguese language/archive2|/archive2]], [[Talk:Portuguese language/archive3|/archive3]], [[Talk:Portuguese language/archive4|archive4]], [[Talk:Portuguese language/archive5|archive5]],[[Talk:Portuguese language/archive6|archive6]]'' |
|||
==Lexical Stress: Please do not edit examples== |
|||
Anonymous editors keep deleting the phrases "in Brazilian Portuguese" and "in European Portuguese" from the section on lexical stress. Please stop it! |
|||
The remarks are important, as the pronunciation of the pairs of words differs between the two varieties of the language, and some of the pairs differ in more than just stress, in some of the dialects. |
|||
This kind of misguided "correction" happens so often that I'm not sure how to avoid the problem. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
:BTW, I'm Brazilian and I don't pronounce "ouvi" as [o'vi]. |
|||
The pronunciations given in the article are the most common. Obviously, it would be impractical to represent all different accents. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== incorrect BP pronunciation == |
|||
the IPA for the "brazilian portuguese" pronunciation contains some inaccuracies: |
|||
*"idade", "sorte" etc. are affricated not palatalized. see [[Talk:Portuguese phonology]]. |
|||
*i don't believe that low-mid vowels exist in pre-tonic syllables. |
|||
*i question the superscripted /j/ after non-final nasal /e/; what's this supposed to mean? |
|||
both the Collins Dictionario Pratico and ''The Romance Languages'' (Harris and Vincent) support all of the above. [[User:Benwing|Benwing]] 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Are you talking about the phonetic transcription of the excerpt from Camões' poem, at the bottom of the page? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
== Manezês == |
|||
Manezês [[Manez%C3%AAs]] |
|||
is spoken in Florianópolis. They say it has a very close accent to the European one. |
|||
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manez%C3%AAs |
|||
:Thank you very much for the link. However, that article is in Portuguese! I'm not sure we should link to it here in the English language section of Wikipedia... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
:I've added it to the [[Portuguese_dialects#See_also|Dialects entry]]. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
::I've added [[:pt:Manezês]] to [[Wikipedia:Translation into English#Portuguese-to-English]]. [[User:Angr]] 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have taken a crack at translating it. --[[User:It's-is-not-a-genitive|It's-is-not-a-genitive]] 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Guttural R== |
|||
There was some controversy recently about the pronunciation of the initial R in European Portuguese. Wikipedian Richard George edited the [[voiced uvular fricative|uvular R]] IPA transcriptions into [[alveolar trill]]s. I reverted his changes because I felt they were significant and inaccurate, and that he should have discussed them here in the Talk page first. Still, I suppose I could have made a bigger effort to make him see this, and "significant" is perhaps a subjective qualification. |
|||
Although an arbitration request has been issued by Richard George, and it's still underway, I felt it would be best for everyone if we sorted this out as soon as possible. Thus, I am presenting my evidence here, to be discussed. If convincing evidence to the contrary of my position is shown, I am willing to change my stance on this matter. |
|||
*First of all, I want to point out that the article, in its current version, does not deny that the alveolar trill is used in Portugal. On the contrary, by linking to the [[Guttural R]] page, it openly acknowledges the existence of that pronunciation. |
|||
*I argue, however, that the alveolar trill is not the most ''representative'' pronunciation of the Portuguese of Portugal; the guttural R (uvular, in this case) is. In favour of this position, I give the following sources and observations: |
|||
#I am a native speaker, and most people I know use the guttural pronunciation, not the trill. |
|||
#TV presenters in Portugal overwhelmingly use the guttural pronunciation. In the radio, the trill is a bit more common, but I would say the guttural R is still predominant. |
|||
#[http://ciberduvidas.sapo.pt/php/resposta.php?id=16894 This expert opinion] (in Portuguese) states that the uvular pronunciation is the most common in the country today: ''"O r inicial, tal como o dobrado (rr) tem, de facto duas pronúncias, uma também apical, mas múltiplo, ou seja com mais toques, o que lhe dá o chamado som rolado, muito usado ainda sobretudo no Norte de Portugal, e '''o uvular, muito parecido com o r alemão, que é actualmente o mais usado'''."'' |
|||
#Mateus, Maria Helena & d'Andrade, Ernesto (2000) ''The Phonology of Portuguese'' ISBN 0-19-823581-X, on page 5, describe the uvular pronunciation as the standard, although they also mention the trill, and they identify the former with ''"the standard dialects spoken in Lisbon and Coimbra, which are accepted in Portugal as a reference for teaching Portuguese as a second language and are the most heard on radio and television"'' (page 4). [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
:Should we put a note pointing /r/ as alophone of /ʁ/? [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I suppose we could change |
|||
:''"There is considerable dialectal variation in the value of the [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic]] phonemes {{IPA|/?/}} and {{IPA|/?/}}. See ''[[Guttural R#Portuguese|Guttural R in Portuguese]]'', for details."'' |
|||
to |
|||
:''"There is considerable dialectal variation in the value of the phoneme {{IPA|/?/}}. In Europe and Africa, its most frequent realizations are the voiced uvular fricative {{IPA|[ʁ]}} and the [[alveolar trill|trill]] {{IPA|[r]}}. In Brazil, it is usually pronounced as a [[voiceless velar fricative]] {{IPA|[x]}}, or as a [[voiceless glottal fricative]] {{IPA|[h]}}. See ''[[Guttural R#Portuguese|Guttural R in Portuguese]]'', for details."'' |
|||
as is already at [[Portuguese phonology]]. That should avoid any misunderstandings. To be honest, the transcription of the initial rhotic of Portuguese is always going to be a complicated matter. /r/ is its traditional value, but using this would give the wrong idea about what is the most common pronunciation today, to foreigners. I like {{IPA|/ʁ/}} because it still looks like an "R", although in absolute terms {{IPA|[x]}} and {{IPA|[h]}} are probably used my more speakers than either of the former two... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] |
|||
==Translation of excerpt from Os Lusíadas== |
|||
The following change has been made, with the argument that there were translation errors: |
|||
:''For all the qualities she saw in them'' --> ''For all the qualities (s)he saw in her'' |
|||
:''And in their language, which when she imagines,'' --> ''And in the language, which when she imagines,'' |
|||
I am changing the verses back, because these are not errors: |
|||
#''In context'', ''via'' clearly refers to Venus (she). |
|||
#''Gente'' (people) is feminine singular in Portuguese (her), but a plural in English (them). |
|||
#"The language" is not good English. You must use the possessive, "''their'' language"; it can't be omitted, as in Portuguese. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 22:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Fair enough. I went through the article rather quickly and didn't realize that all of those verses were from one contiguous passage; I thought they were a series of isolated stanzas. Taken in context, you are absolutely correct in reverting my edit. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 23:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
On the other hand, FilipeS, wouldn't you agree that "E na língua" should be translated to "And in the language" instead of "And in their language"? I think I'll change that one. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Does anybody have an opinion about possibly changing the translation of "estrela" from "star" to "destiny"? I think "destiny" would be a better fit here and would be a proper rendering of the Portuguese into English. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I have to go away for awhile, so I made the change suggested above. I think it reads a little bit better now. Let us (me) know if someone disagrees. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that "star" in this case is supposed to mean "good fortune", but I will check it in the literature before making any changes to the translation. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I considered "good fortune" as well and that might actually render a slightly better-sounding English. However I chose "destiny" because this passage is a description of a debate (or discusssion) between the gods about the future legacy of Lusitania, and in this sense I think that "destiny" is a more accurate English rendition of the sense of the dramatic action since "fortune" or even "luck" would imply a result do to chance or nature rather than by deistic assistance. I also changed "showed" to "displayed" to improve the flow of the translation. I think this helps also, but I'll readily concede that there are other possibilities that might be better yet. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)~ |
|||
::I've now found Lengdon White's translation from 2001, which is the only modern English translation I could find referenced anywhere (albeit my research was fairly cursory)> I didn't find his efforts particularly satisfying, by I repeat them here for discussion, |
|||
:::''Against him spoke the lovely Venus |
|||
:::''Favoring the people of Portugal |
|||
:::''For her love of Roman virtue |
|||
:::''She saw ressurected in them, |
|||
:::''In their stout hearts, in their star |
|||
:::''Which shone bright above Ceuta, |
|||
:::''In the language which an inventive mind |
|||
:::''Could mistake for Latin, passibly declined'' |
|||
::I'm intrigued by his translation of "mostraram" into "shined". In the first place the number is confusing because "star" is singular and "mostraram" is plural. Clearly in White's translation it is only the star which is shining and not the hearts, so this appears to be one problem. The other is with the passive-voice rendering. This possibility had actually occured to me before finding White's translation, but I thought that Portuguese required the pronomial form of "mostrar" (e.g. "mostrar-se") in order to be translated as "shone" in the passive voice, although perhaps in the days of Camões White's rendering would have been fine. We are now quite far away from my areas of expertise, and it would be educational to hear a (much) more informed opinion on this point, such as that of FilipeS. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 12:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I like Mr. White's translation, actually! It does not stray much from the original, but flows very smoothly! I disagree that his translation implies that only the star "shone", as this verb is valid both for singular and plural. It can very well refer to the "star" ''and'' the "stout hearts" (the latter of which, by the way, is a nicer translation than the one the article has currently). Regarding the use of the passive, well, White has rephrased the metaphor a little bit. It's very difficult to keep everything the same when translating poetry. But I don't think it takes anything substantial away from the sense of the verses. |
|||
:Going back to what we were discussing before, though, I have to say that I'm not entirely satisfied with your change of "star" to "destiny". The original poem has a metaphor -- why lose it in the translation? Keep it! I think the English word "star" has the connotation of "good fortune", too, like in Portuguese. What do you think? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, I certainly agree that White's translation of this passage taken in its entirety is better than what we have now, and it wouldn't bother me at all if we just used his version. On second read, I can see how "stout hearts" might be shining as well "their star" as part of the metaphor -- although I think most readers of the English who are not already familiar with the original will only see a star shining without the hearts. On the other hand, I do agree that White has preserved the sense of the metaphor in his use of "star"; in the original translation that I found in the article I don't think that this metaphor was well-preserved -- that is actually what prompted me to attempt a change. The connotation certainly exists in English, as you point out, however IMO due to modern usage habits it is a weaker connotation these days than that in Portuguese. I also prefer White's rendering of "corrupçaõ", which was another difficult point in the translation that bothered me. I also agree that White flows very well and is more poetic, so upon further reading and after considering your comments I say, "Let's just use White instead". I do note with a (very) small amount of satisfaction that White at least agrees with me on "the language" instead of "their language" :) Anyhow, FilipeS, I am well aware of the enormous amount of excellent work that you have done on this article, and others similar, so at this point I will simply step aside on this point and let you do whatever you think is best with this passage. Thanks for engaging me on this; I enjoyed it. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your kind remarks! Even though I contributed substantially to the translation which is currently in the article, I would not mind if it were replaced with White's translation, which is better. However, we must be careful with copyright issues. Is it O.K. to copy White's translation to the article, if we cite him as the author?... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::According to [[WP:CITE]] there shouldn't be any problem using this material if it is cited properly. I have the information necessary to make a proper citation, but when I went back to the article to make the change I noticed that the only other footnote (titled "Note") appears to be an orphan insofar as it doesn't seem (unless I missed it) to have a direct referrent in the body of the article. Being a newcomer to this article, I'd prefer not to start making changes in footnote and reference formats, etc. On the other hand, if you have the time to track-back the existing note and let me know what is the correct referring sentence/paragraph in the main text, I will be happy to make the appropriate formatting adjustment to: a) preserve the existing note and include a working footnote superscript in the body of the article and b) incorporate White's translation of the Lusíadas passage with proper citation. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Hello again. I'm pretty sure the footnote had to do with the number of speakers of Portuguese. Most of that material has been moved to [[Geographic distribution of Portuguese]], so the footnote may now have become obsolete. Still, I can't figure out where it was supposed to be in the other page... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:OK, I included White's translation. I put his name in the column header and gave a proper footnote reference at the end of the passage. I think it works, don't you? I also deleted the orphaned note. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
It's fine — good job. :-) [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you, FilipeS. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Dialects and classification == |
== Dialects and classification == |
||
| Line 146: | Line 23: | ||
"Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation"... Really?! Which Wikipedia guideline says that? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
"Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation"... Really?! Which Wikipedia guideline says that? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I've tried to motivate my edits with detailed arguments and all you've done is revert and claimed that you don't have to motivate anything because the guidelines don't need to be followed. If you feel that an exception is necessary, you should motivate it. |
|||
==Very Large Page== |
|||
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I archived the majority of the talk, because it was just to long and difficult to navigate. Now, this page is gigantic. Should it be separated into several smaller pages? It is really hard to navigate the page. I vote for this! [[User:Charlesblack|Charlesblack]] 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you mean this Talk Page, or the main article? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:11, 17 December 2006
Dialects and classification
Please bring back the dialect maps and the spoken samples. They're wonderful illustrations of the article and hiding them in sub-articles does not make this article better. And the section is now effectively without any clear references.
The point of the section "Classification" seems to have been somewhat misinterpreted due to its previous title: "Classification and related langauges". The point is not to examine in detail how Portuguese relates to each of its linguistic neighbors, but to provide general information of its place among the Romance languages. Consider down-sizing this section since its size is not the least bit motivated. Portuguese is not unique enough in this instance to motivate such an excessive treatment. There should really be more focus on other sections.
Peter Isotalo 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- For a quick classification, see the template at the top of the article. I'm reverting your change to the section heading, as your version is less descriptive than the previous one. FilipeS 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The infobox is a minimalistic quickie of a reference chart, and not much else. It is by no means a satisfactory summary of anything. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template#Classification for why you should consider trimming the section. A lot of the information about development from Latin, for example, would seem more at home in the history section.
- Is anything going to be done about the almost complete lack of citations, btw? I can't see this article making it through even the most ingratiating of FA-reviews in its current state.
- Peter Isotalo 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed this part:
These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. However, try to stick to the format for the Infobox for each language.
FilipeS 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation for doing so. I don't see one.
- Peter Isotalo 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation"... Really?! Which Wikipedia guideline says that? FilipeS 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to motivate my edits with detailed arguments and all you've done is revert and claimed that you don't have to motivate anything because the guidelines don't need to be followed. If you feel that an exception is necessary, you should motivate it.
- Peter Isotalo 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)