Talk:Maltese language

Message board

• Hi! Please consider visiting the Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board. (should this be in a little box or something?) Srl 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Romance and English "grammar" sections

Pluralization of borrowed nouns is not a part of "grammar". It is lexicology. These two sections should not be called "grammar", but "Romance lexical patterns" and "English lexical patterns". Now, if there are verb paradigms that have been borrowed from English or Italian, or syntactic patterns, that is grammar, or if the English/Romance plural markers are used on words of Arabic origin, that would qualify as grammar. As is, there is no grammar discussed in these two sections. Borrowed verbs use Arabic morphology, no surprise here since borrowed French verbs use English morphology in English. It is also not uncommon in languages for borrowed words to carry their old plural markers with them, compare English cactus-cacti, cherub-cherubim, datum-data, etc. But this is not English grammar, it is English lexicology. (Taivo (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Question: Should we split the Lexicology section from the Grammer?

(Refer to Other Comments for further description)

Gian (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Support (5)

• Support - Automatic support by suggester: User:Taivo
• Support - agree --Gian (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons below. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - sounds good. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Comment - Lexicology is somewhat of an unusual name for a section. Why not make a subsection for either Nouns or Pluralization under grammar? I realize that there is not much of a grammar in the article besides the pluralization patterns, so I can also appreciate the rationale behind renaming it to something else. — Zerida ☥ 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

• I disagree. Taking the Wikipedia articles on Morphology and Lexicology as a convenient reference, morphology is the study of the internal structure of words, while lexicology is the study of words as units of the lexicon. Grammar is not always historically monolithic -- it can have layers. So just because some of the plural morphology found in Maltese was borrowed from English or Romance along with the nouns themselves, that doesn't mean it's not morphology. (Some languages do have suppletive plural forms, and those would sensibly be handled lexicologically.) Morphology is clearly part of grammar, so I believe that all non-suppletive pluralization schemes in the language should be handled together in the grammar section. --Mpline (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

Now you mention it, yes, I believe you're right. I think the lexicology section should be split off from the grammar section: possibly to give us an order in the article of:

• Vocabulary
• Grammar
• Lexicology

What do people think? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lexicology is a different thing to grammar, so I would think yes. What order should the three points appear in? I propose the suggested way above, since vocabulary is quite possibly the most apparent feature of a language, followed by grammar, and then, lexicology.MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, lexicology is part of vocabulary. Just as in an English dictionary exceptional pluralization patterns are marked in the dictionary entry, so too the two should not be separated here. The "Vocabulary" section should be renamed "Lexicon" (a good technical term) and then the two subsections, "English lexical patterns" and "Romance lexical patterns" inserted after the discussion of borrowed vocabulary. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I think this makes more sense. — Zerida ☥ 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will just add a couple other comments just so everything is clear. "Grammar" consists of those rules of language which are pretty much automatically applied. So the "grammar" of English pluralization is "Add -s to the end of the noun". The "lexical" part of English pluralization is "Many borrowed Latin words keep their Latin plurals--datum/data, cactus/cacti. Some other borrowed words also keep their plurals, although these can also be pluralized by -s--cherub/cherubim or cherubs." Under grammar here, you would write the native Maltese plural method (whatever the inherited plural marker is for nearly all common nouns). Then you write under "Lexicon" something like "Words borrowed from English often retain the English plural marking of -s. Words borrowed from Italian retain an Italian plural marker of -i" (of course, that is just a sample and overly simplified, but you get the picture). You separate what is predictable (put it under "Grammar") from what is not predictable (put it under "Lexicon"). In this way, you don't even have to mention that Romance verbs take Arabic morphology because ALL verbs take the same morphology, whether borrowed from Romance or not. I know it's a technical distinction, but it is an important distinction within the science of Linguistics. (Taivo (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Could you give us a preview of what your ideas on structuring it are, Taivo? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor = "Do not needlessly multiply entities". I shortened the whole discussion of plurals and made one paragraph on plural marking within the grammar section including lexicological information. Same goes for incorporating a note about Romance verbs in the verb paragraph. Another note, it is NOT "Romantic", but "Romance" when referring to the language group. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Media

According to this section it says that us maltese have a large coverage of italian radio. I'm wondering what frequencies they are on cause i only hear maltese and english on the radio. I think you got mixed up with italian tv. Besides most shows are in maltese.

Personally I think we need to re-write the whole section and wikify it and by all means try to avoid percentages since they are not encyclopedic material.

Gian (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference given appears to back up what the text says, so I don't think the content should be removed. I agree that perhaps a rewrite of the section is needed, but the percentages are useful statistics, and if written in, in the right way, could contribute a useful part to the section. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the reference is certainly wrong and not a reliable source. I only get these Radio Stations here in Attard. Most of them are all Maltese and English especially the political ones. 92.7 and 101.0. (Since we Maltese switch a lot back and forth from English to Maltese]] . A few are 24 hrs English like Malta's Magic (91.7). The percentages you have there are certainly are wrong. Fair enough if you want to have percentages but let me remind you that it is the same thing like saying 40% of Maltese is semitic. In an encyclopedia you only have accurate facts. Percentages change from time to time and are inaccurate. So i don't think that percentages are encyclopedic material. Besides that said how could 25.6% listen to Italian radio if we don't get it here? (we only get Italian TV):S:S. --Gian (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can only go on what our sources tell us - otherwise it becomes OR. Perhaps you could find some references? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some references later. However until then Assume Good Faith in my remark. I have an advantage over you because i reside in Malta and can confirm things for you. Now, if you don't want to listen to me. I can't do anything ey. However i guess you should listen to me and look for a better source.--Gian (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gian, this doesn't involve AGF. I am assuming good faith, in the sense that I acknowledge you are not doing it to vandalize. However, policy is that if something is stated, it must be referenced - meaning my view on whether or not it is true is irrelevant. Let me put it this way:

• Wikipedia cannot say the sky is blue, unless it has a reference.

but at the same time

• If wikipedia finds a reliable reference saying the sky can be considered green, then it is true.

It may sound strange, but that's the way it works. Also, since there is one source which says that Italian radio stations are picked up by Malta, there will still be some mention of this in the article, even if you find a reference which does not mention it, as in order to achieve a NPOV, all views from all the relevant reliable sources must be included. See? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding and possibly throwing a firecracker on the fire, but who cares if Italian radio stations are received in Malta? Mexican radio stations are received in South Texas and French Canadian radio stations are received in Maine. So what? This article is NOT about Italian or English, it is about MALTESE. Let's take everything out of here about how Maltese people are multilingual and put it in the article about Maltese people. This article is about the Maltese LANGUAGE, not the Italian or English languages or the use of Italian and English on Malta, that material belongs in the article on MALTA, NOT in the article on the Maltese language. (Taivo (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I would say just move it accross to Languages of Malta. However, I think the information is still useful in this article because since the article is about the Maltese language, the section comments on how much of the media uses Maltese language, and a simple explanation of how the rest that is not in Maltese, is in English and Italian, is entirely relevant. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But your comment above mine says nothing about the media in Malta, but about "Italian radio stations...picked up [in] Malta". That's not really relevant any more than an article on American English need mention that Spanish radio stations are picked up in South Texas. The airwaves respect no border. Now, if you want to talk about radio stations IN Malta that broadcast in Italian, then I would see the relevance, but the Poles can pick up Ukrainian radio stations, too. If you want to focus on media in Malta, then do so, but keep Italian radio stations broadcasting from Italy out of it--it's not relevant. (Taivo (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Nothing that isn't about the Maltese language is relevant in the article on the Maltese language. I understand the nature of the reasoning in the other direction, but it's like saying, well, B isn't A but it's next to A so it's relevant in an article on B; and, well, C is similarly relevant since it's next to B; and so on until the article mentions every letter up to and including Z. The fact that some Maltese listen to Italian radio stations, whether the stations are in Italy or in Malta, is information about Maltese people and, if they are in Malta, about Malta, but not about the Maltese language. The contrary argument, if reproduced for other languages, would lead to the article on the English language mentioning every language listened to on broadcast radio by people in the UK, the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, etc. I understand that for narrowly spoken languages from small countries there's a tendency to conflate the country, the people, and the language, but they are still not all the same thing, and the very fact that there IS a separate article for the Maltese language is consistent with that distinction and begs for it to be maintained. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying; in my oppinion, I would still say that since the percentages are so large, it warrents some mention, don't you agree? But anyway, is there a re-write anyone would care to suggest? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, since percentages have nothing to do with it. 100% of the people in Malta eat, but there isn't any reason in an article about the Maltese language to comment on the eating habits of the Maltese people. I don't understand why you're so keen on having material that isn't about the Maltese language in the article on the Maltese language, especially when it's perfectly clear that there are articles where it is on-topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you've got some odd analogies Largo Plazo. How about this:

Media

Main article: languages of Malta

With Malta being a multilingual country, the usage of Maltese in the mass media is shared with other European languages, namely English and Italian. The majority of television stations broadcast in English or Maltese. Similarly, there are more Maltese-language radio programs than English ones broadcast from Malta (television and radio broadcasts from Italy can be picked up as well). There are an equal number of newspaper periodicals published in English and Maltese.^[18]

We can expand the "media" section into a fuller "sociolinguistic situation" one. The percentages can go to languages of Malta as they have more to do with "preference" rather than usage. The internet section should also be reworded, though I'd have to give more thought as to how. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an analogy is to illustrate a point that evidently isn't clear to someone else by posing a situation that is comparable (in ways pertinent to the discussion) where the point is more obvious. Excuse me if that makes my analogies "strange", but sometimes I think the only analogy that people stuck to their stance in a discussion will accept is the useless one, A is to B as A is to B, being prepared to find the slightest disparity between A and C or between B and D in an analogy of the form A is to B as C is to D and to pick it apart—disregarding the irrelevance of that disparity to the point the analogy was produced to illustrate. Besides, in the case of my analogy, can you tell me what so strange about comparing "eating habits" to "radio stations listened to"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The A to B to Z is a classic example of slippery slope fallacy and a binary yes/no statistic on eating habits is absurd and non-notable because everybody eats. I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've come up with some pretty awful analogies myself; I once compared inexperienced writers to polar bears. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I chose the A, B, C analogy for that reason. The article about Maltese language is about a language. Italian is a language; one place where language is used is the radio; some people who are Maltese listen to Italian on the radio. I explicitly chose that analogy to illustrate how much of a stretch is involved in deeming Maltese people listening to Italian on the radio relevant to an article on the Maltese language: it's relevant only in the same way that Z is relevant to A. As for notability: notability wasn't under discussion here, relevance was. If you prefer notability, substitute any notable passion shared by some large percentage of Maltese for eating. "95% of Maltese fly kites on May Day," for example: even if it were true, it still wouldn't belong in this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither the eating, nor the kite analogies, have anything to do with language, so in effect, are not an accurate portrayal. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does radio. Oh, yeah, one hears language on the radio. People also converse over dinner. And in this case the language is Italian—so it has nothing to do with Maltese. Simply stated, "Maltese people listen Italian on the radio" is not information about the Maltese language. It can't be put any plainer than that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a well-written rewrite. I think the current section in its current state should be moved over to Languages of Malta (at least, the sections that are not already there). Also, the rewrite includes one part in parenthesis; my views on the parenthisization itself are unclear, but I do not agree with the contexted placing of the content within it, as it gives the connotation it is assimilated with the radio programs section, although it bares reference to the television one too. What do people think of this slight rewrite of your modfication?:

Media

Main article: languages of Malta

With Malta being a multilingual country, the usage of Maltese in the mass media is shared with other European languages, namely English and Italian. The majority of television stations broadcasted from Malta are in English or Maltese, although emissions from Italy in Italian are also received on the islands. Similarly, there are more Maltese language radio programs than English ones broadcast from Malta, but again, as with television, Italian broadcasts are also picked up. Maltese generally receives equal usage in newspaper periodicals to English.^[18]

MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, though I think instead of "emissions" we might want to say "broadcasts." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary section-name followed by Main article: article-title implies that article-title is an expanded treatment of section-name. In this case, "Language of Malta" isn't an expanded treatment of Maltese media. It may contain such a treatment in a section of its own, but the "Main article" treatment is misleading. Is there a template for "Treated more fully in [[article-name]]"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that did pass through my mind, but what I am presuming is that when the current section is moved across to form another section in Languages of Malta, the "main article" section here, will link to the sub-heading of the "media" section (that we will make there, from the current one here) in the languages of malta page, so it will be something like

Main article: Languages of Malta § Media

, if that makes sense? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, except that "main article" still implies the article itself is the expansion, not a section of the article, even if the link leads to the section. That's why I'd really prefer a "fuller discussion" link of some kind. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use a sub section "see also" to link to the Languages of Malta#Media, which would be more relevant than the "Main" template. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Perfect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, look at what happens to the discussion after I go to bed ;) I think the rewrite is good. While the article is "Maltese language", as with all languages with few speakers some sociolinguistic information is appropriate. The rewrite is concise and clear--perfect encyclopedic content. Well done. (Taivo (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Shall it be done? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're serious??? i don't get what the proposal is about let alone voting. Regarding Languages of Malta if you're going to edit something over there.. comment on the appropriate talk page not over here.. its already difficult for me to follow the discussion.. :S:S Besides why are there two subsections titled the same.. media etc.. ?? Man this page got out of hand. --Gian (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Why are we voting on everything? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The votes are not a "final decision", since wikipedia does not use polls to make decisions; it uses consensus. However, the votes help us get a summary of whether or not there is a consensus. Hope that helps. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki. The process goes through repeated iterations. The sum of edits by successive editors leads to improvements to the page.

What's wrong with the standard method of determining consensus? (see flowchart to the right). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we tend to disscuss major changes first, without actually doing them, until consensus is reached. That other method involves actually modifying the project page first, and then other people reverting if they disagree, etc, etc, etc, until we end up with various edit wars. The best thing, I think, for a situation like this, is to disscuss it, and count up whether there appears to be consensus for the suggested changes. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose I can't argue against measures to ensure clear consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what are people's views on the rewrite? Should it go in or not? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to add that a vote being won does not necessarily mean "consensus". If, for example, 6 vote for something, and 5 against, the fact that there is one more vote for, does not make a difference, as there is not clear "consensus" either way, and as forth, a discussion should then ensue as to what conclusions can keep both sides happy. When wikipedia discourages voting, what it means is that votes should not be taken as "consensus", and should only be used alongside discussion - not in place of it. However, wikipedia fully encourages the voting system (see page) to get a summary of what the current views are on the discussion - which is exactly what we are doing. Just thought I'd clear some things up for people. ;) Basically, to summarize, votes are fine, as long as the answer is not considered "final", but just an "indication". MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but even one disagreement may show a lack of consensus. Take a look at WP:SILENCE. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i wasn't here to comment but i was quite busy.. just got back from my Maltese A-Level.. was easy :P Aeusoes1 wants to go by the book on everything. I don't see why...Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I think you're wasting your time.. and ours trying to pinpoint all the policies of wikipedia.. From my perspective i find this page very misinforming. Some things are totally the opposite to what I've learned but i can't do anything since to prove myself i have to cite sources and that's very difficult..--Gian (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we delete this section now.. i really don't know what it has to do with the maltese language discussion and i'm rather confused with this mess.. --Gian (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The section titled "media" was in need of alteration. It's already been changed and we were just making sure nobody opposed. WP:IAR is only appropriate when the rules are getting in the way of the project's goals. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Proposal

Where it says this:

"Maltese is generally accepted to be descended from Siculo-Arabic, the Arabic dialects that developed in Sicily and the rest of Southern Italy, but a few sources also claim it was from Tunisian or Maghrebi Arabic[3][4][5], with substantial borrowing from other languages such as Sicilian and Italian; a connection to the ancient Punic language has been discredited.[6]"

I don't think this is such a great passage to be honest. It seems to be suggesting that the very first foundations of the Maltese language are from Siculo-Arabic. This is not true. The very first linguistic base of the language was the Indo-European language brought over by the Sicani tribe. Siculo-Arabic was then superimposed on top of it, (it did not wipe out the already existing language and start afresh, as the current article would appear to suggest). Basically, the text needs to summarise how the language exists from the superimposition of Siculo-Arabic on the already existing Indo-European language spoken by the natives, and then (as the article already says) how Romance influences were later installed. What are people's views on this? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Isn't the origin of Maltese a disputed topic amongst scholars? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some dispute that Maltese was influenced by Tunisian Arabic rather than Siculo-Arabic, althought those stating that are in the minority. But that's off the point, as it's not what I am arguing. I think it is safe to say that basically all groups accept that the language was not formed from just the Arabic dialect (whatever dialect you state that to be) without keeping any of its earlier influence - the language brought over by the Sicani people was originally an Indo-European language, and the Arabic dialect was superimposed on it - it did not wipe it out and start completely again. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that Maltese is not descended from Classical/ninth century Arabic? My understanding is that it is, that it is not wildly more different from it than other nonstandard varieties of Arabic, and that it isn't considered a dialect of Arabic mostly for cultural and historical reasons. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One can say the same about many other languages, including other varieties of Arabic. English was "superimposed" on Irish resulting in noticeable Irish influences on Hiberno-English; Arabic's contact with Berber in Morocco resulted in Moroccan Arabic; Gaulish and Latin into French, etc. This is not a unique property of Maltese. It simply suggests that Maltese, like most Arabic varieties, has substratal influences from the indigenous languages of those regions. — Zerida ☥ 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gaulish is a substrate of French, but the opening section of the French language page does mention both Gaulish, Latin, and even Germanic influences; I see no reason why the original substrate of Maltese should be left out on this article.

In response to Aeusoes, no I'm not saying that - but that the current wording seems to suggest that the language started off with only Arabic - which is not true. The text, like other language pages, needs to show that the foundations of the language were not just "Arabic", but consist of an Arabic Dialect (Siculo-Arabic) superimposed onto an already pre-existing Indo-European language brought over by the Sicani tribe. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, but I don't know if that's correct either. Aren't most of the features attributable to Indo-European influence thought to have occurred after Arab rule ended? History of Malta seems to see it that way. What does scholarship say? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This reference is frequently used to indicate about the Sicani tribe. The final result of Maltese gave us a situation in which, yes, the majority of the Indo-European influence was the post-Arabic influx of romance, but that does not mean that because it is the majority, that the earlier instance of the Indo-European influence should not be mentioned. Unless someone is suggesting that the original people who came over to the island did not have any language? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be very careful about talking about "substrates". This term has a technical usage in linguistics that does not apply here. There is no more "Sicanii" linguistic influence on Maltese than there is Celtic influence on English, that is, virtually none. There is more Gaulish and Frankish influence on French than there is either Celtic or Sicanii influence on either English or Maltese, respectively. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

The language spoken by the natives was not "wiped out" during the Arab rule. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So when did it go extinct? (Taivo (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

There wasn't a "point" where it stopped existing. It simply became mixed into the Maltese language as the Arabic was laid on top of it. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't know myself whether Maltese contains a substrate or not, though I'd be surprised if it didn't. Essentially all the spoken varieties of Arabic do with the obvious exception of the Saudi/Bedouin dialects. If Maltese is part of the Maghreb Arabic continuum, then already we know that it has indirect Berber influences. — Zerida ☥ 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese is NOT a "mixed language"--it is a variety of Arabic. There WAS a point when the previous inhabitants of Malta stopped speaking their earlier language and switched to Arabic. They surely did speak Arabic with "a Maltese accent" meaning that they carried over some small amount of phonological and lexical residue, but the previous language CEASED TO EXIST. It was NOT mixed into Arabic to form Maltese. Arabic was not "laid on top of it", Arabic REPLACED it. (Taivo (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry to disagree, but no, it was superimposed on it; it did not wipe it out and start again - otherwise, after the Arabs left, Malta would have spoken "pure" Arabic, which as we know, they did not. That is not to say that Maltese is not classifiably Arabic - it is - but the small foundations that it used first of all need to be mentioned. And yup, you're right Zerida, many varieties of Arabic do, but that does not mean this one should not be mentioned. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Taivo can you tell me from where you got this data regarding maltese is not a mixed language.. hahaha.. its exactly my essay question that i got for the my A-Level.. Il-Malti Lsien Imħallat which means Maltese a mixed language. I know what you're talking about. You're talking about Al Himyari report. Look i'm going to quote something from my Linguistics book that i studied. I'm going to translate everything in english so you can understand.. The essay that i took these two paragraphs from is written by Ġorġ Farrugia, a Maltese scholar.

In the year 870 our islands were conquered by the Arabs. Politically and socially speaking we don't know much about this period, we don't know exactly what type of relations these people established with the Maltese. However, linguistically the Arabs were the conquerers that influenced our language. The biggest evidence of this is our language. Today Arabic is seen as the pillar of our language.

These new conquerers from the tribe of "Aglabiti" (not sure what this translates to in English :S) from North Africa used to talk a variety of arabic that was already mixed in itself. This means that their language wasn't classical Arab however an arab that resembles the arab spoken in the maghrebi countries like Tunisia. This type of arabic had already started to differ from its mother language from the forms of the verbs and many more. However a few years ago it was found in an old arab document written by Al-Himyari that according to him the "Aglabiti" Arabs (again i don't know what this word translates to)

from Sicily invaded Malta in the year 868/869 and wiped out the whole population of Malta. According to this document in 1048/49 the Muslims came back to Malta and in habitat the island. If this is true, it looks like that the islands weren't in habitat for around one hundred and eighty years and that's why when the Arabs of Sicily came back to Malta, the new language they got back with them was Sicilian-Arabic, a language that was different from the arabic spoken in the maghrebi countries (the language that the arabs used that invaded Malta in the 19th Language). If this document is trustworthy we can say that the Semitic element in Maltese that as we already said is the pillar of our language is in fact a variety of arabic mixed with the romance (sicilian) already .

This is only a small quote .. but as you may see the author is quite skeptical of the report. That said its a matter of faith.. We have no prove whatsoever that this document is genuine or not.. and is disputed amongst scholars. I hope this helps you lot.. :)--Gian (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aglabiti means Tunisian.. i found it in my notes. cheers --Gian (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes there Gian. :) Yup, the Arabic brought over was Siculo-Arabic, a dialect of Arabic that developed on the Kingdom of Sicily. But the native Maltese population wasn't wiped out in any sense; in fact, in 1224, the Arabs were all expelled from Malta, but if it was true that the natives were wiped out and only Arabs lived there, then there wouldn't have been anyone living there, which we know not to be true. Thanks lots Gian. :P MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the source you linked to, Magde, and I see nothing about language. What you're proposing is basically OR speculation. We need sources for it, even if it seems obvious to you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not need a source that says "they brought over an indo-european language", because there are sources which show they spoke an indo-european language, and there are sources which show they were the first settlers on Malta - and combining the sources, one gets the combined sourced information. Unless, as I said before, you are perhaps suggesting the people who came over did not bring their language? and that the first settlers on Malta used grunts?? ;) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can't break the list of claims down:

1. Malta was inhabited before the Arab conquest
2. These inhabitants spoke a language
3. Arabs brought their language with them when they took over Malta
4. The population did not learn Arabic but instead spoke a mixed language with an Indo-European substrate and an Arabic superstrate
5. The Maltese language is different from the variety of Arabic that came to the island

Sourcing for 1, 3, and 5 is present. 2 is obvious and certainly doesn't need a source. 4 is unsourced. You cannot assume that because of 2, 3, and 5 that 4 must be true (is also likely to be incorrect and would constitute OR by synthesis). 5 could be because of natural language evolution or skewed learning of Arabic by the native population, neither of which would justify calling Maltese a language of mixed origin. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should be calling it "mixed". I am saying the article should mention how it is not just "siculo-arabic", but is more complex than that, with siculo-arabic imposed over an already pre-existing Indo-European structure that was largely displaced by the Siculo-Arabic, but was not "removed", meaning the resulting language, although Arabic, had other roots too. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're describing is a language of mixed origin. You're presuming a notable substrate language without any evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As said before by another, the long quote says NOTHING about language. I never said that the previous inhabitants were wiped out by the Arabs. I said that they LEARNED Arabic and STOPPED speaking their previous language. Their genetic material survives in Malta to this day, but their LANGUAGE is completely gone. Look at North Africa. The inhabitants of North Africa are genetically Berber, Punic, and Arabic, but linguistically Arabic. People learn to speak the language of their conquerors. This is the way language works. Look at Ireland. They are genetically Celtic, but linguistically Germanic (excluding the small Irish-speaking regions). You don't have to kill people in order to kill their language. In the U.S. there are millions of Native Americans, but only a few thousand of them still speak their native tongue. Maltese is NOT a mixed language. "Mixed language" has a VERY specific linguistic definition which Maltese does not even come close to meeting. (Taivo (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Maltese is not a mixed language and no linguist even briefly suggests that it is. Read the article on Mixed language and you will clearly see that Maltese does not fit this definition. When the Arabs took control of the island, the original inhabitants learned to speak Arabic (doesn't matter for my point whether it was Siculo-Arabic or Maghrebi Arabic). A few features of their previous language crept into the variety of Arabic spoken on Malta, but, by and large, the Sicanii language became EXTINCT--children no longer learned it as a first language. When the Arabs left, no one remembered the "old language". The language of Malta from then on was a variety of Arabic with little or no trace of the previous language. You cannot use the word "substrate" because it has a technical linguistic usage which Sicanii fails to meet. The situation between Sicanii and Arabic is nearly identical to the situation between British Celtic and Anglo-Saxon--virtually zero influence. (Taivo (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Punic

This is kind of a continuation of the last section, but at the same time, I would like to address something slightly different. I find many sources that say Siculo-Arabic was imprinted over the original Punic of the island. However, the text seems to imply that the "Punic theory" has been completely discredited. I don't think we can honestly say that in the text, since different sources say different things about it. So I invite discussion into this.

Additionally, if Punic existed before Siculo-Arabic was imprinted over it, was this the language spoken by the original inhabitants of the island? Surely it couldn't have been, since the Sicani tribe who first inhabited Malta were from Iberia, unless they brought a language with them that was influenced by Phonecian-based Spanish? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Phoenician-based Spanish". Spanish did not exist at the time that Phoenician was spoken in Iberia. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the Phoenician language in Iberia did not extend inland much beyond the coastal enclaves where it was spoken. The same is true for the Greek that was spoken in Iberia--coastal enclaves only. Iberia before the Roman conquest was inhabited by a variety of Celtiberian as well as by non-Indo-European languages such as Basque and "Iberian" (non-Indo-European, non-Basque). Unless there is epigraphic evidence for the language of the Sicanii (which I don't know if there is or isn't), there is no way to even tell if it was Indo-European. With the Roman conquest of Iberia came a fairly rapid replacement of these languages with Latin, which later evolved into Spanish. While there were leftover pockets of pre-Roman languages (such as Basque and Lusitanian), by and large the earlier languages were replaced by Latin before or soon after the beginning of the Common Era. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

So when did the Punic enter into Maltese (according to the sources)? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the history of Malta, but it would have been during a period of time during which the Cathaginians controlled Malta. Transfer from Punic colonists in Spain is highly unlikely. (Taivo (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Given the size of Malta, I'd say that the language of conquerors would be adopted by the population very quickly. The Sicanii (who, if they were Iberians, as has been claimed, would have been non-Indo-European) would have been long gone before the arrival of the Arabs, who probably assimilated a population speaking Latin or Greek. It's hard to tell which one, due to the lack of an identifiable substrate in Maltese.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there no scholars of Maltese (here)? But everyone has an opinion?? This is why there's such a mess..... it's kinda sad really. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia and it is considered to be bad manners to write on the talk pages in a language other than English. (Taivo (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

To rephrase my original comment, in English; Are there any scholars in Maltese interested in contributing to the page?

I think a more authoritative approach may resolve some of the key issues that have plagued this article for some time.. specifically accurate footnoting and verification of factual accuracy. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuscan v. Standard

Tuscan Italian is being used to help accurately distinguish the variety of Italian from Sicilian. Yolgnu and myself have (so far) agreed to this distinction; one anonymous editor disagrees. Further opinions are, as always, welcome (read 'actively encouraged') (..please say something..) golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As Yolgnu already stated, Sicilian is not a type of "Italian". Standard Italian is more appropriate since the usage of "Tuscan" makes it appear dialectial and is therefore misleading to the reader. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please ref. where Yolgnu states that? Also, I don't really think an accurate assessment 'makes it appear dialectical'. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. you are aware that the link you posted has Yolgnu supporting the inclusion of Tuscan (rather than Standard) Italian, right? golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Yolgnu's reason for reverting that time was (as listed in the edit summary) a revert of replacing "Sicilian" with "Sicilian Italian". Yolgnu did not comment in the edit summary on the "Standard Italian" bit. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit clearly shows the change includes a shift from 'Standard' to 'Tuscan' italian! I'm all for sophistry, but only if it's clever. Perhaps a change back to Standard, rather than Tuscan, is due. I don't think it is. Hopefully other editors will comment asap. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, you refuse point blank to accept anything don't you. Yolgnu was reverting the edit as a whole, so as to rid "Sicilian Italian" of the "Italian" part, and the edit summary explains this. Reverting the whole edit meant adding "Standard" to "Italian" was also reverted, but this was not mentioned in the summary, and therefore was not part of the aim of the revert. You have so far given no valid reason as to why Tuscan should be used over Standard. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept change! And my valid reasons are listed above :) golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a cretin here, but if Standard Italian is Tuscan, what's the contention? Also, what's the source that states it's specifically Tuscan and not any other variety of Italian? I'm thinking it won't harm anything if we just say "Italian" — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not being cretinous ;p I'm beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about myself... what I've been saying is that 'Tuscan' makes a clear distinction, since Maltese has been most influenced by (specifically) Sicilian (re Siculo-Arabic). But all this faffing about is making me wonder whether or not the point is worth making. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aeusoes, good old "Italian" is the best way to go; after all, that's the name of the Wikipedia article for the language.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I had to go to the article on Tuscan in order to find out that Tuscan is not an strange italian dialect but in fact the official Italian standard. It would have been more informative for me if the description simply had said that. Also I don't understand how people can keep on reverting eachothers edits without ever beginning to present sources. Obviously if a source about romance influence in maltese said Tuscan instead of Italian and there was given some reason for this choice then that might influence how other people see the matter - how ever no sources have been presented and the revertwar has been waged as pure contradiction. I think the editors involved with this page should think hard about how to improve the article along the guidelines of wikipedia (for example the article is very underreferenced) instead of squabbling over details.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess as to why people want to say "Tuscan Italian" rather than "Standard Italian" is a concern that people might presume to think that Standard Italian in this context means "Standard Sicilian Italian." I just don't know if it's accurate to specifically state that the influence of Italian onto Maltese was from the Standard dialect and not some other nonstandard one. Until we find out, simply saying "Italian" is best. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maltese vocabulary - Wording

At present, the section on Maltese vocabulary begins with "Although originally a Semitic dialect...", presumably a direct quotation from the source. But this is incorrect; Maltese still is classified as a Semitic language, though its vocabulary is no longer predominantly Semitic. Perhaps we should find another source; I'm sure that this is not the only one to state that contact with English and Romance languages has given Maltese a mixed vocabulary.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True, I was using the source as a justification for using "semitic" in this context. The actual wording is

"When Maltese, an originally Semitic dialect gradually developed into a highly expressive language on its own through direct contacts with non-Arabic sources of influence (mainly Sicilian, Italian, French, and English), started to be written in the 17th century and then on a much wider scale in the 18th and 19th centuries, Italian had already established itself as the only and unquestionable cultural language of the island and had a respectable literary tradition of its own."

I think the best phrasing would be "Originally, the vocabulary of Maltese was predominantly Semitic; long term contact with non-Arabic sources of influence, especially English and several Romance languages, have since altered the language to be one of mixed vocabulary." I don't think we can use just this source as a justification for that wording. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording makes it sound as if maltese is no longer a semitic language, when in fact it is just saying that it has integrated a lot of foreign vocabulary into it. It also would sound unfair to say that english "although originally a germanic language". I would propose simply striking the word "originally".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I condone User:Taivo's changes to the section. They give a much more accurate understanding of the situation, and does not seem to misrepresent the sources' statements.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good job, Taivo. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixed language

We need to use better sources, preferably printed peerreviewed sources written by experts in language contact that state that maltese is a mixed language. Some of the current sources are not written by linguists (Michael Rosner who has written two of them does not seem to be a linguist). And one says the opposite of what it is quoted for namely that :"A first attempt of analysis of Maltese within the framework of Creole studies was put forward by Stolz (2003); according to him, Maltese – as well as Chamorro – doesn’t belong neither to the category of ‘mixed languages’ nor it may be interpreted as an example of ‘massive borrowing’ (cfr. Bakker/Mous, 1994). Maltese is marked by quite a mixed vocabulary but it doesn’t reach the degree of lexical admixture as in the case of ‘massive borrowing’ (90%): 57% of its vocabulary is of non-Semitic origin (Sicilian, Italian, English) and only about 38% of its words are derived from Arabic, functional words not being considered (cfr. Brincat, 2000: 194-197)." This is insufficient support for claiming that "many linguists say" ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The section was in an awful mess. I have restructured it, and in doing so, hope that I have been successful in accurately transcribing what was said in the sources, unlike how they were when I found them. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen not one single linguistic source that classified Maltese as a mixed language. It does not fit the definition. (Taivo (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

The sources on the page did the trick the last time I checked. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that we need better sources - those sources are not of sufficiently high quality for making such sweeping statements.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus above. Some editors seem to be under the false impression that finding any odd Internet page backing up their claims equals sourcing the claims. That's not the case. In this case, the overwhelming linguistic consensus is that Maltese is a Semitic language and the "sources" presented this far does not change that. JdeJ (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job Magdalenadiarco! Lacrystallililcry (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of POV pushing from both sides here. Let me explain this. The anon that originally placed the sources on the page provided reliable sources, but pushed a POV with them. Other editors then (rightfully) highlighted that not all the sources backed up what the text said. I altered the text so that they give an honest reflection of the sources. Since the sources are reliable, it is POV and OR to discredit them, and yes, while it may be benefitial for us to find some more, I think there are certainly more than enough for the moment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I contest that those sources are reliable - and it seems that other editors do the same. Most of them are just internet pages purporting third or second hand theories of maltese linguistic history. These claims needs to be based on scholarly peereviewed sources and as far as I can see none of them support any ideas of maltese beng a "mixed language" or classifiable as "semiromance".·Maunus·ƛ· 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources - they fit all the criteria, unless you have something else to bring to the table? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not in a position to pick and choose sources, as long as they are reliable third party ones. If they are, (which they are) then it wouldn't be a neutral point of view to include sources on one view and not another, if they are both reliable. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through and labelled and dated all the sources, and during doing so, came to realize that the claim above of none of the sources being written by linguists is completely false. Michael Rosner, Albert Gatt, Duncan Attard, Ray Fabri, and J Caruana are just a handful of those involved, and all of them are qualified linguists from the University of Malta. Oh, and then there's Ignasi Badia i Capdevila, who has already been sourced in the article elsewhere - hardly a non-authoritative figure. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a linguist is not a guarantee for being correct even on linguistic issues. In Turkey, some linguists suggested that all languages of the world derive from Turkish while a professor in linguistics in Finland suggested that most of Europe used to be Finnish-speaking. Within linguistics, or any other science for that matter, a good source is usually published in peer-reviewed journal. The sources presented here by Mr Rosner keep a dismissal academic quality, not to say no academic quality at all. In the university in which I work, and in any other respected university I know of, not even a student would get away with writing of such a low quality as here. I have read the sources provided here, and while it is true that some of the claim that Maltese is a mixed language, not one of them manages to back up that claim with any evidence. The fact that 21(!) references are now inserted after that sentence is rather telling, and I would much prefer seeing two or three reliable sources than many non-reliable ones. JdeJ (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add to the above that J. Aquilina was indeed a great expert on Maltese linguistics but it has been 60 years since he conducted his research. I too have old sources at home that make claims about language origins (including, but in no way limited to, Maltese) that modern linguistics has shown to be wrong. Likewise, some of what we now believe will most probably turn out to be wrong, but we can do no better than the present research of our time. Just as we would not use old claims of the Earth being flat today, we should not use outdated hypotheses here either. JdeJ (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The point in hand was whether or not there were any linguists behind the sources, and low and behold, there are, satisfying Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Removal would be considered POV pushing. I however agree that there may now be too many sources listed, on a purely visual basis, and as such we should select the best of the sources and use only those. On another note, in the Finnish example you listed, that POV would still have to be listed in the article, as long as it is well referenced. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't agreee on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. When there is one generally accepted theory and a fringe theory, and there are many fields where there are, the normal tendency on Wikipedia is to give prominence to the accepted theory. Such is the case here, all we have are very old sources and some claims made on the Internet but without any evidence for the claims. And no offence intended, but I guess you're not familiar with linguistics and have not worked in academia? There is no such thing as an absolute truth, you can always find a number of strange hypotheses on every topic. The task is then to provide proof for those hypotheses, establising them as theories. That's the version that enters into any encyclopedia. To take the English language as an example, we don't include paragraphs on the English language being the language of long-lost Atlantis. We don't state that English is the language of the lost tribes of Israel. We don't claim that English is a Latin language. We don't claim that English is a mix of Finnish and Celtic. All of those claims have their supporters, in a few cases even linguists, but not one of them have yet been able to offer any support for their claims. Such is the case with the writings of Roser et al., they make unsupported suggestions and ask us to believe them without the slightest evidence. That does not satisfy reliable sources in academia nor in Encyclopedia Britannica, nor should it at Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not familiar with linguistics? I have a major in Indo-European languages, and a minor in Psychology, not that it is particularly any of your business. I consider your attempt to discredit me based on qualifications (incorrectly I might add) as nothing more than an immature personal attack. Let me explain how thngs work on Wikipedia - if you can find a reliable source which says the sky is pink, then Wikipedia must say the sky is pink, but at the same time, if you cannot find a reliable source which says the sky is blue, then Wikipedia cannot say the sky is blue. Since the sources so far found are classified as reliable by Wikipedia, then Wikipedia must reflect this. Wikipedia has no place for POV pushing one way or the other, and both sides must be described. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case you should be able to evaluate the quality of sources. We clearly disagree on this one. JdeJ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(undindent) The source and what they say:

• ([1] Louis Werner (writing for the online journal SaudiAramcoWorld) writes:

"Modern Maltese (or Malti, as the Maltese people themselves call their language) is described by some linguists as a “mixed language” of Semitic, Romance and English elements, while others simply call it an Arabic dialect. Maltese nationalists a hundred years ago portrayed Malti as related to ancient Punic; purists today fault the younger generation for adopting undigested loan words from English and Italian."

Problems with this source: It is a piece of journalism. It states that "some linguists consider Maltese mixed" without saying whom or whether this claim is tenable.

• ([2]) Alain Dèsouliéres expert in Urdu language writing in the journal Urdu studies writes:

...This new definition (of the concept "mixed language" red.) may apply to such languages as Maltese, Osmanli or Ottoman Turkish (as different from modern Turkish), Yiddish, etc.

Problems with this source: It is not dealing specifically with Maltese. It uses a new definition of the concept of mixed language which is different from that used by all other linguists and vaguely states that Maltese might be classified as mixed under this definition.

• ([3]) Ignasi Badia i Capdevila writing specifically about Maltese writes:

"it is Europe's only Semitic language, and at the same time an authentic example of a mixed language owing to deep Sicilian and Italian influence." and "Malta’s secular inclusion in the Western European world was aided by the fact that Maltese is always written in the Latin alphabet4 and not in Arabic script, and by the transformation of Maltese into a mixed language. The latter, caused in the main by massive Romance relexification, is comparable to the changes undergone by medieval English when it was invaded by Norman French words."

Problems with this source: The usual definition of a "mixed language" used by Muysken and Bakker and others working with creolization is a language that cannot be said to belong to one language family but which has a double set of linguistic roots. This means that under this definition it is contradictory to call a language a semitic language AND a mixed language. Capdevila must be using a different definition and we need to know why he thinks Maltese is an authentic example of a mixed language. In the second paragraph he writes why he considers Maltese to be mixed: because of massive relexification. He compares the situation to norman influence in english. Again this is contradicting the normal definition of "mixed language" under which English has only jokingly been called a mixed language - he also cotradicts what he said about Maltese being the only Mixed language in europe, if he also believes English to be one.

• (1014.pdf) Paul Micallef a computer scientist writing about the construction of a Maltese lexical database writes:

"The paper describes a rule based system, taking into account the mixed origins of Maltese (semitic and romance) to categorise function and verb words"

Problems with this source: Micallef writes specifically about lexicography so when he says that Maltese has mixed origins he is talking only about vocabulary - having a vocabulary of mixed origin (something all languages have) is not enough to classify a language as a mixed language under the standard definition.

• ([4])Laura Mori writing specifically about the analysis of Maltese as a mixed language writes that

"A first attempt of analysis of Maltese within the framework of Creole studies was put forward by Stolz (2003); according to him, Maltese – as well as Chamorro – doesn’t belong neither to the category of ‘mixed languages’ nor it may be interpreted as an example of ‘massive borrowing’ (cfr. Bakker/Mous, 1994). Maltese is marked by quite a mixed vocabulary but it doesn’t reach the degree of lexical admixture as in the case of ‘massive borrowing’ (90%): 57% of its vocabulary is of non-Semitic origin (Sicilian, Italian, English) and only about 38% of its words are derived from Arabic, functional words not being considered (cfr. Brincat, 2000: 194-197). With such a high degree of lexical borrowing, Maltese cannot be considered neither as a ‘mixed language’ and it has to be placed in an intermediate category between the two; according to Stolz, language contact typology has to be rather interpreted in terms of an ideal continuum ." and later "Both the socio-linguistic situation Malta underwent along the centuries and the actual features of the Maltese system allow us to propose its typological classification as a creoloid belonging to the group of Araboid languages (Owens, 2001)."

Problems with this source: The source acknowledges that Maltese does not fall under that normal category of Mixed languages. Trying to find out what then to call it it uses the term "creoloid" which can only be understood as meaning something that is like a mixed language but isn't.

• ([5]) Encyclopedia.com writing about romance languaes writes that:

"For at least two centuries thereafter, a Romance language dominated social, political, and cultural life in much of the British Isles and had such an impact on the vocabulary and writing of English that, like Albanian and Maltese, English has been called a semi-Romance language;"

Problems with this source: The article doesnt treat Maltese specifically. It doesn't propose any definition of maltese as either mixed or semi-romance, it says that it has been called so. It doesn't say by whom. It also again compares the situation in maltese with that of english which again is only jokingly said to be a mixed or semi-romance language, but alway counted as a genuine Germanic language.

([6]) Michael Rosner, computational linguist writing about the construction of a Maltese lexical database writes:

"It is a mixed language with underlying semitic and romance substrata which permeate its morphosyntactic structure."

Problems with this source: Rosner is a computational linguist and not an expert in either language contact, linguistic genetic classification or language history. There is no reason to believe that he is applying the standard definition of Mixed language, which is also clear by his somewhat weird use of the word substratum which is also not normally used in that sense by historical linguists or linguists working with contact phenomena.

In short I don't think these sources provide sufficient grounds for claiming that "Mixed language" is used as a definition of Maltese by any notable group of linguists. On the contrary it seems to me that the linguists state the opposite namely that the Maltese situation is like the one in English (which is never in serious called a "Mixed language") and that the studies conducted specifically within a creolization framework unequivocally conclude that it is not a mixed language. It might be relevant to say that its vocabulary is of largely mixed origins but that still doesn't make it a mixed language in a linguistic sense. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Maunus above. Although MagdelenaDiArco might disagree, I still haven't found any evidence presented here in support of Maltese being a mixed language. JdeJ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reasons you gave do not counter WP:Reliable Sources. Most of what you wrote was also original research. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maunus, all the things you are saying are original research, and until you can back them up with sources, your speech is invalid. I mean, this: "It states that "some linguists consider Maltese mixed" without saying whom or whether this claim is tenable." is completely irrelevant. The source states linguists - it does not have to mention who. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh. How terribly original. Maunus presented a scholarly overview of the so-called sources presented here, and we are lucky that some users are able to tell the difference between a valid source and any random Internet-page. The fact of the matter is that no evidence has been presented for Maltese being a mixed language. JdeJ (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"we are lucky that some users are able to tell the difference between a valid source and any random Internet-page." - Yes, we are.

"The fact of the matter is that no evidence has been presented for Maltese being a mixed language" - Not even going to comment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody forces you to comment, but then stop changing the article and reap up on WP:FRINGE. JdeJ (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between a fringe theory and representing a neutral point of view. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No evidence presented for Maltese being a mixed language? 21 sources is evidence enough in my book! Lacrystallililcry (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people not to feed the trolls. Wikipedia has its policy clearly stated with regards to reliable sources, by which Maltese is classifiable as a mixed language. If JdeJ continues to POV push, it may be time for more drastic action. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what POV am I pushing and how? Put your money where your mouth is then, go ahead and report my "POV-pushing", I'm looking forward to it. JdeJ (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if he edits on the article itself. If he just continues to repeat his arguments here, then we have the option of ignoring him. Unless he edit wars on the article, he is safe from action at the moment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How graceful of you. The difference might be that I have some arguments, but I've realised that your strategy is to "ignore" people when you don't have anything to say. JdeJ (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, we havn't given any arguments at all have we. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no. I don't know how many times I've asked you to provide any evidence (as opposite to claims) that Maltese is mixed language. All you've done is posted many 60-70 year old sources presenting an old theory that no longer is accepted and then a few modern claims by Rosner, who in turn has not been able to present a single piece of evidence. Given all your bragging about your degrees, surely you must know the difference between a claim and a proof?JdeJ (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested reading WP:Reliable Sources. If anyone wants to argue that it supports Rosner's claims, they are welcome to present where in the text they find that. It says quite clearly that peer-reviewed publications are preferable. There is no big difference between one bad source and 21 bad sources. JdeJ (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosner, along with the other sources provided, is a published source. Published sources are reliable sources - with your capacitant intelligence, I would have thought you would have realized that? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think it is time for us to disengage in "conversation" (if you can call it that) with the troll. I think the rest of us interested in valid debate can perhaps move onto discussing which of the 21 sources are the best ones to include. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on WP:NPA. You will be reported the next time you violate it. JdeJ (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as you shall be, JdeJ, considering your personal attack against me.

Anyway, yes, I agree Lacrystalilicry, considering this latest comment: "Put your money where your mouth is then, go ahead and report my "POV-pushing", I'm looking forward to it.", it seems the user is not interested in generating constructive discussion.

How many sources should we be aiming to include? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment you quote above is, as you're aware, taken out of its context. In general, I'm most interested in constructive discussion, but the discussion here seems to consist of anonymous users calling me a troll when I disagree with the one holy truth. Same thing with Maunus. I don't know if MdA and the two others is the same user or not, (I guess not), but nobody of them seems to be interested in any real discussion. When Maunus and I have tried to point out faults in the sources, all we meet is abuse. So the "constructive discussion" seems to be the privilege only of those who accept the truth. Very well, go ahead then and discuss your sources. But at least show the honesty to accept that people have the right to question those sources. JdeJ (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Same thing with Maunus." - Maunus has accepted the validity of the linguists.

"I don't know if MdA and the two others is the same user or not" - well if you suspect me of sockpuppeting, you should go report it right now, or it could be interpreted as a verbal attack used to discredit other users. Although I am personally interested at how I would be able to log in and out to different accounts so fast that I would actually edit conflict myself.

"but nobody of them seems to be interested in any real discussion" - oh, and we're back to your same old argument again. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rightly said. If you think of me as a sockpuppet of MagdelenaDiArco, then clearly state so. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, I was too vague. I meant to say that I don't believe any of you to be sockpuppets of each others (hence the 'guess not') but find it remarkable how you display exactly the same tendency to prefer personal arguments over discussing the sources. Sorry for the confusion, I will be more precise in the future. JdeJ (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say around 3 would be a good amount to select. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The troll has been blocked since 21:58 UTC last night and will be until 21:58 UTC tonight. While it is clear that some people have described Maltese as a "mixed language", it is not all clear that (a) most or even any of those people are linguists (computer scientists like Michael Rosner are not linguists), or (b) everyone is using the same definition of "mixed language". Some of the sources define how they're using the term and are using it differently from its conventional definition at Mixed language. Other sources don't define the term, so we don't know. Other sources use other terms like "semi-Romance", which sound at first blush like they might be referring to mixed languages, except that other languages like English and Albanian are then also called "semi-Romance", indicating that whatever that term means, it doesn't mean mixed language, since English and Albanian aren't mixed languages. It seems clear enough that the mainstream view is that Maltese is not a mixed language. Whether there is a significant minority view that it is one (and per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE significant minority views should be included, but clearly marked as such) isn't clear because of the instability of the definition and because a large portion of the sources using the term "mixed language" appear not to be written by linguists, raising real doubts as to whether they're using the term in a technical way or in a vague way to mean "Maltese has words from lots of different languages". —Angr 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well how has he been editing here today then? And Michael Rosner is not a computer scientist. We have already established that. He is a computational linguist. It is also OR to suggest which linguists are more valid than others anyway. Whatever happens, the mixed language description will still continue to be maintained in one form or another on the article. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever happens, the mixed language description will still continue to be maintained in one form or another on the article" I suggest you read WP:OWN.JdeJ (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well perhaps you would feel at comfort to disclose how I have suggested I own the article? I have simply mentioned that due to the vast reliable source backing, it certainly can't be ignored. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has been editing here today, at least not under the IP he was using yesterday. Keeping the mixed language description is fine, as long as it's made clear that no one who actually knows anything about mixed languages believes it. —Angr 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to JdeJ, right?

"as long as it's made clear that no one who actually knows anything about mixed languages believes it" - POV pushingMagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the anon who started this whole mess yesterday. And what I said isn't POV-pushing; there really is no evidence at all that any of the sources who use the term "mixed language" in reference to Maltese actually know what the term means. The only one of the sources the anon added yesterday that does use the conventional definition of "mixed language" is the one that says Maltese isn't one. —Angr 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read that source properly, you would realize it in fact states that Maltese falls somewhere between a mixed language and a semitic one on a "continuum". Secondly, there are plenty of sources listed which reflect the accurate term - if you check, I moved the ones which didn't to the text after the main bulk of the sources. And thirdly, are you just going to ignore all the offline sources? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much have to ignore the offline sources because I don't have access to them. I have no idea if they say what the anon claims they do. It actually seems unlikely since few of the online sources actually say what he claims they do. —Angr 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that only some of the offline sources were provided by the anon, and I gave the remainder of them today. Additionally, you do not have the authority to disguard sources without having even looked at them. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So far I am only speaking about the sources the anon added yesterday. I haven't had a chance to look at the ones you added today. Sorry if that was unclear. —Angr 12:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this "mixed language" POV-pushing, and I disagree even more with these consensus-less changes. The criteria for mixed languages is very strict, and Maltese does not fit it, any more than English, Basque or Albanian do.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even commenting on your history of POV pushing in the back and forth edit wars against User:Kalindoscopy and User:Taivo, until you can discredit the sources, your statement is completely invalid. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ is making some attempt to represent a more balanced POV here. If he brought that behaviour over here, there would be no problem Lacrystallililcry (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Magdelena. I've never reverted or disagreed with any edit by Taivo, and I find it insulting that you suggest I have. As for Kalindoscopy, need I say more? I'm sure he has a sock or two around through; we haven't seen the last of him.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"I've never reverted or disagreed with any edit by Taivo" - the previous discussions on Taivo's talkpage suggest otherwise. Oh and yes I know, and think Kalindoscopy was blocked with good reason too, but you have a history of both edit warring against eachother. We are now trying to find a neutral solution, so that no edit wars can ensue. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Taivo's a good friend of mine, and I find your groundless accusations quite insulting (sure, we've had friendly debates, but not about his edits and not about Malta). Please stop trying to destroy friendships, and focus instead on the matter at hand: you need consensus to make controversial edits, consensus you don't have.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you I have no aim of dividing anyone on here. My primary aim here is to ensure a NPOV is used in constructing the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter is that you have had your disputes with Taivo. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Magdelena, are you able to comment on the issue at hand instead of commenting on other users? Whenever someone disagrees with you, you jump at that person. Me, Maunus, Angr and now Yolgnu. Your attacks on Yolgnu are completely out of line and unrelated to the issue at hand. Comment on issues, not on persons. JdeJ (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, point out to me where I have "jump"ed at Maunus or Angr? In your case, the entirity of the community on this page is tiring of your antics. In Yolgnu's case, I have done nothing unreasonable, and simply pointed out the user's history - unless that's such a no-no? Only if they're ashamed of it? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You called Angr a POV-pusher for not agreeing with your sources, remember. Comment on the topic, not on other users. JdeJ (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A POV pusher is someone who tries to inflate or deflate a source, which is what he did. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You really are provocative, aren't you, Magdalena?--Yolgnu (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Magdelena's analysis, let's try to focus on the matter at hand. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Indent) - Yes, let's. I am tiring of the antics of certain users now. The current wording is:

In the course of history, the language adopted large vocabulary and grammar influences from Italian (particularly Sicilian), making them the now majority vocabulary influence of the language. An increasing vocabulary (some with their plural forms) are also borrowed from English. As a result, and due to the fact that both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns have been maintained simultaneously, Maltese is alternatively considered as a mixed language rather than a Semitic one, although classification as either one still occurs. It is also arguable that Maltese is neither Semitic or mixed, but fits in somewhere inbetween, on a continuum, while other analyses of it have even gone as far as to classify it as "Semi-Romance".

However, some users are suggesting that the definition of Mixed language used in them is incorrect. Well until they go and read every offline source, that is so far an invalid statement anyway. But secondly, it is OR to say this without proof. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Well until they go and read every offline source, that is so far an invalid statement anyway."" I guess you don't even believe in that yourself, so why add comments of that kind? So some user with a wild POV fringe theory could include 100 old Turkish off-line documents as sources and claim they support the claim, then insist that nothing can be done before everybody else has read all old Turkish sources? Hardly. And once again, you seem to think that it is somehow your task to decide who is allowed to comment and who is not, and that you decide what should be included and what should not. And if anyone questions you, you respond with personal attacks. I suggest you read WP:OWN, WP:NPA and WP:EQ. You're violating all of those. JdeJ (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would like to propose that the most useful source to use is the one by Laura Mori - because she explicitly states that Maltese is not a mixed language under the standard definition of that term but that it might be pertinent to analyse it as a "creoloid" because it does show some traits of language intertwinement. I am convinced that if the article is to be factual it will have to say something along the lines that "Maltese is not a mixed language under a strict definition of the term but that it is sometimes called one on the basis of having very mixed vocabulary"(citing e.g. Capdevila and Rosner). We can also state that "Laura Mori proposes to give the language a status as a "creoloid" in order to acknowledge that it does have a high degree of lexical and grammatical admixture. (citing Mori)"·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two of the offline sources given are undated; of the remainder, the most recent is 47 years old. Therefore, the dated offline sources could at best support a sentence along the lines of "Maltese was once alternatively considered as a mixed language rather than a Semitic one" but certainly nothing in the present tense. Saying "have even gone so far as to classify it as 'Semi-Romance'" is highly misleading, as it suggests the source (which also calls English and Albanian "Semi-Romance") goes beyond even the suggestion that M is a mixed language. In fact, the source never uses the term "mixed language" at all, so its relevance to he discussion is highly dubious. —Angr 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maunus gave something of a movement forward - however, I still have a problem with it, since it explicitly states "Maltese is not a mixed language", which, considering the sources, is still a POV. Perhaps something more like:

"Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language (cite), although this has been highlighted as controversial due to the high Romance, and more recently Germanic influence on the language. Alternatively considered a creole,(cite Mori), it has even been suggested that it is a Mixed language, although not accepted by mainstream linguistics in the orthodox meaning of the term.(citing e.g. Capdevila and Rosner). Other analyses classify it as not being a mixed language or a Semitic one, instead fitting somewhere inbetween the two on a continuum spectrum (cite Bonnici)."

MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems workable. However, I think the "Semi-Romance" idea should still be represented somewhere. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the Germanic influence is irrelevant in this context; mixed languages are only ever a mix of two languages. Also, a "crealoid" is no more a creole than a humanoid is a human.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The language was originally a "mix" of Sicilian Arabic and Italian (particularly Sicilian). However, recently, it has begun to become even more "mixed" with English syntax and vocabulary patterns.

"Also, a "crealoid" is no more a creole than a humanoid is a human." - Oh your logic is simply mindblasting. Are you forgetting that a human is a humanoid? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This one includes the "Semi-Romance" source, and a couple of minor adjustments:

"Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language (cite), although this has been highlighted as controversial, being "Semi-Romance" (cite encyclopedia.com). Alternatively considered a creole,(cite Mori), it has even been suggested that it is a Mixed language, although not accepted by mainstream linguistics in the orthodox meaning of the term.(citing e.g. Capdevila and Rosner). Other analyses classify it as being neither a mixed language or a Semitic one, instead fitting somewhere inbetween the two on a continuum (cite Bonnici)." 210.19.71.60 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is a constructive way forward, let's hope we can reach a version all can agree on. My comment to it would be that, in order to represent the current view, it should be pointed out that very few favour the mixed-language theory, although it used to be more common 60-70 years ago. JdeJ (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

210...'s version seems to work, although I'm a bit iffy about the "Semi-Romance" bit, although I guess its not too much of a problem. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vocabulary is utterly irrelevant to the question. No number of loanwords alone can make a language into a mixed language. (This is why the "semi-Romance" designation Oxford uses is so suspect, as it seems to be based purely on lexicon.) If it's a mixed language it has to have morphological and syntactic properties taken from two languages. So far, I haven't seen any evidence at all that the morphology and syntax of Maltese is anything other than Semitic. And without a working definition of "creoloid" I don't see that introducing that term is useful at all. —Angr 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Either of the wordings would be better than what we have at the moment. Strong support. Magdalena, the IP, Maunus, and JdeJ all seem to be working together to at least reach a compromise. Angr is doing nothing but being stubborn now, objecting to all sources - unnacceptable behaviour. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Angr, all you do is say that all the reliable sources are incorrect, and it is getting ridiculous. You are not in a position to state that, and I suggest the others of us move on to try to reach consensus. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the version with the sources filled in. Maunus, where is the "Mori" one you spoke of?

"Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language, although this has been highlighted as controversial, being "Semi-Romance". Alternatively considered a creoloid,(cite Mori) it has even been suggested that it is a Mixed language, although not accepted by mainstream linguistics in the orthodox meaning of the term. Other analyses classify it as being neither a mixed language or a Semitic one, instead fitting somewhere inbetween the two on a continuum (cite Bonnici). "

MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Angr is being extremely rational and giving contructive input. I cannot accept 210's version. Noone has said that Malteses semitic status is controversial, even the single expert who calls Maltese a mixed language (capdevila) says that it is strictly a semitic language (which is also what gives away that he uses a different definition of mixed language). Mori doesn't say that Maltese is a creole (which is a specific kind of mixed language under the strict definition thereof) but a creoloid meaning that it looks like a creole but it isn't - specifically Moris conclusion is the same as Bonnicis namely that Maltese is neither nor but somewhere in between. The "semiromance" material is not notable - it is simply someones humourous take on english language history it is completely inadmissible as a scholarly source on maltese. As a comment to Angr i hold that Mori and Rosner do cite some kinds of morphological influence from Italian in Maltese (an -i plural morpheme among other things) but Mori admits that this is not sufficient to classify it as a mixed language or creole, whereas Rosner doesn't qualify his statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus and Angr. It could only be said that Maltese has been loosely called a "mixed language", but not that it has been classified as a mixed language (as opposed to Semitic). None of the reliable sources that use the word "mixed" oppose "mixed language" to "genetically Semitic"; it's clear that they don't use the term in its strict sense, which the wiki article mixed language is about.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"it's clear that they don't use the term in its strict sense, which the wiki article mixed language is about." - Original research MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:NOR doesn't say "read with your brain turned off" or "quote out of context" - basically, ignoring the terminology of the source means quoting out of context and deceiving the reader.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New attempt at a compromise wording: "The degree of influence in Maltese from non-semitic language is so high, that it has sometimes been called "a mixed language"(cite capdevila and rosner, and some of the old paper sources), but studies have shown that it is not pervasive enough to classify Maltese as such under the strict definition of "Mixed language" used in creole and language contact studies. (cite Mori and Stoltz and Muysken, maybe give a note stating why they found Maltese to fall short of the strict definition)"·Maunus·ƛ· 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New wording is weak. Against. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, your new wording hasn't been very well put together. I am with the other version still. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying this? "although this has been highlighted as controversial, being "Semi-Romance". What "being"?--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it was the IP who worded it like that. Secondly, anyone with a grasp of the English language understands it.

Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language, although this has been highlighted as controversial, being "Semi-Romance"

It runs perfectly smoothly - it simply doesn't use a child's level of English. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be that Anonymous44 hints at the problem of OR instead of the problem of grammar? It is the anon user who claims that Maltese is Semi-Romance. So while it runs smoothly, it's not accurate. JdeJ (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It sure is OR, because it assumes that the loose term "semi-Romance" excludes the quite specific term "Semitic", and that contrast is not in the source. But what I meant above was that the text doesn't run smoothly. The last subject is "this", and not "Maltese", so "being" can't refer to it, even though it's obviously meant to. This is just bad Enlgish.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I know who Angr is (although I don't know him) and he is by far one of the biggest experts on linguistics on Wikipedia. The matters he raises are worthy of attention. And it is true that vocabulary has no relevance to whether a language is a mixed language or not. Magdelena, with her degree in Indo-European linguistics, is certainly also aware of that. Many languages have borrowed extensively from other languages, but that doesn't make them mixed. At least not in the linguistic sense of the word. JdeJ (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, he is not correct this time, despite your wiki-worship of him. And anyway, you have just argued your own case out of the window. You are suggesting that Angr is deciding in his own mind that the sources are wrong, but by WP:NOR, he may not do this. As I stated before, Wikipedia must reflect exactly what the sources say, even if you do not agree with them. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I recommend you to comment on facts and not on other editors. JdeJ (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Maunus proposal is the best one this far as it mirrors the current linguistic view most closely, but let's keep discussing. JdeJ (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

People seem to be forgetting that this suggestion:

"Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language, although this has been highlighted as controversial, being "Semi-Romance". Alternatively considered a creoloid,(cite Mori) it has even been suggested that it is a Mixed language, although not accepted by mainstream linguistics in the orthodox meaning of the term. Other analyses classify it as being neither a mixed language or a Semitic one, instead fitting somewhere inbetween the two on a continuum (cite Bonnici). "

already describes that it is not accepted by mainstream linguistics in the orthodox sense of the term. I will not be accepting Maunus' newest proposal, as I think it would be a simply attrocious wording for a site which is supposed to be intelligently written. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pure trolling on your part. You know very well that style is not the issue at the moment.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Well if you honestly consider that, go to the AN. You are ridiculous. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As per MDA, I won't be accepting Maunus's latest suggestion. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

feel free to reword my atrocious and childlike english - which nonetheless has the virtue of being correct as opposed to your proposal.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I still object to including the phrase "semi-Romance" and the source it comes from. It is clear from reading that source that "semi-Romance" to them means nothing more than "having a lot of Romance loanwords", which is trivial to this discussion. The source certainly does not support the claim that calling Maltese a Semitic language is "controversial". I can't check through all the sources at the moment but off the top of my head I can't remember seeing any source that calls the classification of Maltese as Semitic "controversial". —Angr 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. JdeJ (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Talking about a controversy here, as Magadalena does, is the real OR here.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Maltese is generally considered a Semitic language, although seen as having partially "Romance" origins. Due to the large impact of these Romance influences, various alternative classifications have been laid upon the language. The odd mix of the components makes it bear some features of being a mixed language. However, Maltese does not fit the traditional orthodox definition of such, and is also variously described as being creoloid,(cite Mori), while other analyses classify it as being neither a mixed language or a Semitic one, instead fitting somewhere inbetween the two on a continuum "

MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's good, but I still prefer my version - this one makes it seem as if Maltese isn't considered a mixed language. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not, it's factually incorrect. Maltese has got a lot of Romance borrowings, but not Romance origins as the proposal above suggests. The proposal by Maunus remains the best this far. JdeJ (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, I can't believe you just said that you didn't think Maltese had any Romance origins. You are so blatantly not a linguist. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but do you know what "origins" means in linguistics? I have to date not seen any linguist claiming Romance origins, as opposed to Romance borrowings and influences, in Maltese. JdeJ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You have now just shown your ignorance of the language - what I wrote was correct. We shall not be accepting the attrociously worded proposal. End of. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole day you have been doing nothing but attacking at least five or six other editors repeatedly. I have warned you both here and your talk page, you will be reported after your next breach of WP:NPA.JdeJ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, you have such a grasp of WP:NPA. Go ahead and report me for calling your understanding of the language ignorant, because I am perfectly within my rights to do so. I am tiring of you. We shall press on without you if need be. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ is quite right: Maltese has Romance vocabulary and influence, but definitely no Romance origins, nor does the source cited claim that it does. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ROMANCELANGUAGES.html is really not a reliable source for anything about Maltese, as it only mentions it briefly in passing, and does not itself cite any sources for the claim that "like Albanian and Maltese, English has been called a semi-Romance language". This is a tertiary source (another encyclopedia) and not one written by experts in Maltese anyway. I think we're much better off removing the whole "semi-Romance" wording and avoiding this source. —Angr 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Jdej, Angr and Anon44 (and Taivo who has alread voiced his opinion in an editsummary) on this issue as should already be obvious - the present compromise proposal by Magdelena is not acceptable for most of the same reasons that I have already laid forth. I am becoming very frustrated with Magdelenas irresponsive, hostile and agressive debate form and will be unwatching this talkpage and article from now on. I have presented enough arguments in order to allow an informed consensus to be made - if Magdelena decides to allow other editors to exact any influence on wordings that is.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus and other contributors. The problem here is not the wording, the problem is Magdelena, her assumed ownership of the article, her bad behaviour, her attitude towards other contributors and her lack of capability to take in what other editors contribute. Let it be known that although I disagree with 201 and Lacrystallililcry over the same issue, they and every other contributor have more or less been able to discuss. It's a pity that seven editors should be held hostage by Magdelena's incapability to interact with others. JdeJ (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind Maunus and JdeJ to remain civil and not to use personal attacks. Anyone is welcome to discuss, but simply repeating the same arguments without listening to others does not help our situation. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want respect, treat others with respect. The most uncivil person here by quite a margin is you. Hope to see you banned soon now that we know you're a sockpuppet. [[7]] JdeJ (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hope to see you banned soon" - Oh dear, you really are breaking both of the policies now aren't you. And that link does not give any evidence of me being a sockpuppet of anyone. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! I haven't seen so much verbage expended and so much heat generated in a long time. The wording in the article right now is acceptable to me. It does not make the flat, unlinguistic statement that Maltese is a mixed language (which it isn't), but states accurately that some people say it is, but that they don't use the linguistically accurate definition of "mixed language" to say it. The creoloid stuff is OK because there is not a good definition within linguistics of what a "creoloid" is. English could very well fit in some of those definitions. I think it's just a lot of wind about nothing since ALL languages could fit within some definition of creoloid (since ALL languages have borrowed from other languages, including borrowing of grammar as well as lexicon). (Taivo (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)) Oh, and just so everyone is clear, I am a good Wikipedia friend with Manaus (we've never actually met in real life). We can disagree on linguistic issues here in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that we are not friendly with one another. (Taivo (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Epilogue

Yes, this was really amusing. We now know that in the above discussion, a single troll used two accounts and one IP (not counting the one blocked already in the prologue) to create the appearance of an entire party on its side, to fight six decent, established users for 10 hours and almost succeeded in imposing its preferred version, on which the current one is ultimately based. A real comedy. Additionally funny is the fact that the creature even wasn't entirely wrong in this whole discussion, but its purposefully trollish behaviour and ignoring of the opponents' arguments turned the whole discussion into a farce intended above all to boost its ego.--Anonymous44 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How long

Isn't the joke getting old? MagdelenaDiArco just decided to insert her faulty version as the version on the talk page. What about waiting untill there is a consensus? At present, the majority of the editors here are against that proposal so to say that no consensus has been reached is an understatement. For the third time today on this article, I remind Magdelena of WP:OWN. JdeJ (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the version is not faulty. Secondly, both sides of the POV are arguing they want the wording more like their way, and as such, this is obviously the NPOV. If you have any valid suggestions, then be bold and go and try them out on the page. If there is consensus, they shall be kept. If not, then nothing lost. If you have nothing better to do, the rest of us would like to get on with editing now, and not waste our time pampering to your needs on the talk page. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of NPOV is not Wikipedia's, not to mention your definition of consensus, if you even have one. That said, there's no problem with editing your paragraph either.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that I substituted the word "origins" for "influences" in order to stop an edit war from JdeJ, which he has the potentiality of doing, in a time when we are trying to keep the article stable. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are these "we" you are constantly refering to? Not Angr, not Anon44, not Maunus, not me, not 201. It may have escaped you, but most users resent both your behaviour and your version. And as Anon44 pointed out, since when are you the one deciding what is NPOV although every other user disagrees? JdeJ (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

201. says that he wants his version, which you said you didn't want either, remember? If you have any reservations about the new paragraph, then mention them, but there are no outstanding criticisms that you have made toward it. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For a start, Maunus's version is by far superior to yours. It's shorter, more precise and more accurate. JdeJ (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well three of us disagree on that matter - hardly consensus. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get on with the show now and introduce some kind of functional wording of that paragraph?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording doesn't seem too bad the way it is IMO. Gianovito (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first edit was half an hour ago, creating a category of suspected sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove, which is what Magdelena was doing immediately before she was blocked.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MagdelenadiArco Sockpuppeteer?

Sorry to go back on my promise to unwatch but I was wondering if anyone had any comment about this blocknotice:[[8]] and this checkuser request? [[9]]?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are they? Wait let me get this straight. Am I being accused of being User:Brunodam? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the paragraph in question?:

Some interesting thoughts:

User:Brunodam, User:Giovanni Giove and User:Iamandrewrice are all banned users, who edit "Italian areas" of wikipedia.

There were recently checkusers on Brunodam (here) and Giovanni Giove (here).

Giovanni's checkuser shows he is related to User:MedagliaD'Oro. Is it just me, or does this have an interesting similarity to User:MagdelenaDiArco, especially since they both edit Italy/Malta related articles?

Then, more interesting, is User:Giangian15.

If you check the contributions of Fonez4Yw and WalkingTelephone, their first edits almost entirely match the editing areas of Giangian15.

Giangian, Fonez4Yw, and WalkingTelephone, all interestingly edit the Malta related articles.

Fonez4Yw and WalkingTelephone also edited the UK set of articles too. And look at the contributions of Gozitancrabz.

Gozitancrabz edited the UK set of articles, and was even involved in a mediation on them.

Per this, he was found to be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Iamandrewrice, who, again, edited Italy and Malta articles.

So basically,

-Iamandrewrice/Gozitancrabz had ties to editing Malta, Italy, and UK articles.

-Fonez4Yw/WalkingTelephone edited Malta/Italy and UK articles, and edited the exact same articles as Giangian15, who also edits Malta/Italy articles.

-Giovanni Giove was found to have a sockpuppet called MedagliaD'Oro who edits Italy/Malta articles - interestingly similar name to MagdelenaDiArco, who edits Malta articles.

-Brunodam and Giovanni Giove edit the same places.

-An account called User:ItaliaIrredenta (who edited Italy/Malta related articles) was found to be a sockpuppet of User:Brunodam. The account edited Template:Italian people, which, interestingly, was created by User:Crystalclearchanges, who is a sockpuppet of Iamandrewrice.

-The template was also edited by User:Pannonicus and User:BurtReed, sockpuppets of Brunodam, and by Gozitancrabz, a sockpuppet of Iamandrewrice.

My thoughts are that all the users are the same. They all edit exactly the same areas, and act the same way, and have sockpuppets named after eachother. It appears that they also understand how to use proxies. Therefore, I am not so sure a checkuser will do much, but I think we can go by WP:DUCK here.

--fone4me 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so MagdelenaDiArco is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. I'm not surprised, could someone please file the necessary report and rid us and Wikipedia of this nuissance? JdeJ (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Point out to me where I have been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of a banned user? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Where it says, quote:

Also  Confirmed that MagdelenaDiArco (talk · contribs) and IrzamAhmad (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Fone4My.

As is easily verifiable by clicking the link, User:Fone4My is indeed banned permablocked for abuse of sock puppets.--Anonymous44 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm not Giovanni Giove. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My apologies to you all for overlooking cleaning up the proven sockpuppets of Fone4My at the end of the complex case. The complexity of it explains my mistake, but I should have taken more care. After being alerted by User:Maunus, I have now taken the appropriate action. My apologies once again for any additional disruption that has happened as a result of this oversight.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't User:Giangian15 blocked too? 210.19.71.60 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine because there was no confirmation that that user was a sockpuppet or had indulged in sockpupptery. If you can point me to a checkuser report that confirms that the user has engaged in sockpuppetry, or has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, then please do so. Otherwise, I'm afraid that suspicions about a user do not condemn them. If you feel there is reasonable suspicionj to initiate a checkuser investigation, then please file a request including your reasons.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MagdalenaDiArco has just redirected USer:Kalindoscopys user talk page and placed a sockpuppet warning on his user page. A nother blocked sockpuppet user User talk:Crystalclearchanges has a history of editing on Kalindascopys talk page and a username surprisingly similar to User:lacrystallillys. think we may be looking at an extremely complex case of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing aimed at maltese language for some weird reason. I don't know how to begin a checkuser request and would like assistance to compile a material of evidence in order to begin such a request. It seems User:Kalindascopy is also somehow a part of this - Magdelena quickly redirected his talkpage before being blocked. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, just press on the "Request a checkuser" button at WP:RCU. Yes, I too suspect User:Lacrystallililcry and/or User:210.19.71.60 are all the same person as Magdelena, but I can't help you any more in the investigation, I haven't edited any Malta-related articles until today. --Anonymous44 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I could be wrong about 210 - while the other IPs around here are from the UK, DNSstuff says 210 is from Malaysia.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious really. They're all socks of our old friend. 84.13.166.223 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And you are? Your first edit was an hour ago, and all of your edits have been to pages related to Giovanni Giove, precisely like Magdelena's were immediately before she was blocked. --Anonymous44 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that MagdelenaDiArco arrived a while ago, getting on fine with Yolgnu, and then when Maggy stops editing for a few months, Kalindoscopy starts to become prominent around the Malta related articles, and falls out with Yolgnu. When Mag comes back, she has a vendetta against Yolgnu. It speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.39.216 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Thou shalt not take my name in vain. I'm not part of any obscure ring of evil language haters.. and it seems to me that I'm the only editor on this article actually in Malta! My brush with Yolgnu was highly unpleasant, but there it is. You're all a bunch of cyber-yentas! Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Temporary partial protection

I've protected the article from new and unregistered edits for a week. There seem to be valid concerns over sockpuppetry, and controversial edits have been made without discussion. I consider that any edit that changes the description of Maltese as a Semitic language influenced by Romance is controversial. I consider that the colour of the infobox, yellow for Afro-Asiatic, is also not to be changed without discussion. I consider discussion to be had when a number of parties discuss the issue and agree on a course of action before making an edit. A discussion is not writing your idea on the talk page and making your edit. I remain committed to upholding the consensus decision of users in this matter. If this temporary protection is ineffective, it may be extended or enhanced. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I knew DiArco would soon appear again, I see the two new socks are blocked. For at least some time, all newly registered users and British/Malaysian IPs editing this page should be checked for being DiArco's sockpuppets.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous account has added changes reminescent of MagdelenaDiArcos (including one of the sources she used). I have reverted.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems we are now back to the previous dispute

User:78.146.59.194 is reintroducing Magdelena di Arcos edits and opinions into the article. Changing "semitic" to "classifiably semitic", a change which is directly against the consensus and reality - which is that Maltese is not only classifiably semitic but simply IS semitic. He also introduces the dubious Saudiaramco source which is unreliable and of tangential importance to the article. I think we will have to protect the page again. I have reverted twice and my next step will be to ask for protection of the page by one of the previously involved admins.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now also reverted his attempts to put the wholly discredited Punic hypothesis in a more favourable light. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done no thing. I have simple clarified that the Sicilian Arabic is accepta as mainstream, and that Punic is another theory that has been arguably discredited.

Original version:

Maltese is generally accepted to be descended from Siculo-Arabic (the Arabic dialect that developed in Sicily and the rest of Southern Italy), with substantial borrowing from other languages such as Sicilian and English. A connection to the ancient Punic language has been discredited.

My version:

Maltese is accepted by main stream theories to be descended from Siculo-Arabic (the Arabic dialect that developed in Sicily and the rest of Southern Italy), relexified by Italian (particularly Sicilian) and English. However, a less accepted, and arguably discredited theory is that it was not Sicilian Arabic, but instead the ancient Punic language that formed the original base of the language.

My newer version:

Maltese is accepted in mainstream linguistics to be descended from Siculo-Arabic (the Arabic dialect that developed in Sicily and the rest of Southern Italy), but vastly relexified by Italian (particularly Sicilian) and English. However, a less accepted, and according to mainstream linguistics, discredited theory is that it was not Sicilian Arabic, but instead the ancient Punic language that formed the original base of the language.

78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This version is unacceptable because by introducing weaselwords "arguably" "mainstream" etc. it gives undue weight to the Pro-Punic viewpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The origianl version was unacceptable because it claims every source accepts Punic to be discredita, when this is clearly not the case, unless you are not going to be as absurda as to argue otherwise?? On another note, I can certainly affirm you I not do this to be "Pro-Punic" - if I was, I would write on the article that it was from Punic, or that it is accepta as main stream that it is - whereas I have done nothing like this - all I have done is clarify that Sicilian Arabic is the mainstream view, and Punic is the less accepted view. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not claim that every source accepts that it is discredited - only every source that matters. This is a question of WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a "fringe" - there are many reliable people think it is Punic. We includus both views. I have clearly shown it is the lesser accepted theory - I am not growing a bias to the article. Ne revertu again, unless consensus is maked here (and that does not consist of just "you"). 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted three times already - I will not revert again today. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your newer version is still inacceptable since it uses weasel language such as "however" "less accepted" and "according to mainstream linguistics" to soften up the "discredited". Also "vast relexification" is much too dramatic an interpretation and suggests a degree of language mixing that the sources deny.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are only minor faults. It is still more good than the original. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. Get yourself an identity 78.... Putting the "Punic" hypothesis on this page is equivalent to putting the "Flat Earth" hypothesis on the page about the planet Earth. Sure there are one or two nonspecialists with access to a web site who might believe that, but there is no debate whatsoever among the specialists. My father-in-law is a welder in Ukraine. He thinks that the moon landing was faked by the Americans as an anti-Soviet propoganda tool. Should we include his viewpoint on the page for the "Moon"? On the issue of "mixed language", Maltese does NOT fit the definition, therefore the word "relexification" is completely inappropriate for this article. Maltese is a Semitic language descended from Siculo-Arabic that has a lot of borrowed words from Italian and English. Much like English--a Germanic language with a lot of borrowed words from French. (Taivo (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

" Much like English--a Germanic language with a lot of borrowed words from French." - yes and interesting how the relexification article itself explains that English was relexified by French. Please familiarize yourself with what relexification actually is. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That was an error on the relexification page since English is not a "creole, pidgin, or mixed language". I corrected the error. (Taivo (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

You are not able to simply start altering definitions of linguistic processes to fit your incorrect argument, and I have reverted. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

78... please familiarize yourself with my personal qualifications to make such edits. I have a PhD in linguistics and specialize in historical linguistics. I AM qualified to make such edits. The relexification article clearly states that it is used in creole, pidgin, and mixed language studes. English is none of these and cannot, by definition, be used as an example of the process. You have two users here (Maunus and myself) who are actual, working historical linguists. Stop your edit war, 78. (Taivo (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Your qualifications do not mean anything. You do not have the right to make up definitions. If you published a reliable source stating your beliefs, then yes, but you have not, so no. [10] Relexification does not have to just be of a mixed language, creole, or pidgin. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, please don't feed the trolls. 78.149.202.191 is obviously a sockpuppet of the same user who had such fun vandalising the page in a similar way and then arguing about it in the same silly way. I have requested semi-protection for the page to keep the troll(s) out. JdeJ (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually please check what it is that you are reverting. I am not doing anything the same as what User:Magdelenadiarco has done. All I have done is:

• Clear up the initial wording with regard Punic.
• Add in things about relexification.
• Split one of the collumns in the table of the alphabet into two.

Please actually go check. I honestly am not doing anything wrong. You obviously have not even looked at the diff. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix the columns, but leave out the Punic and relexification because Punic is fringe and relexification is wrong. (Taivo (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

I have not claimed Punic is accepted by mainstream linguistics have I?!

And no, you claim relexification is wrong. The article disagreed with you (before you then modified it), and so do the sources. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the Punic part down in the article, so it does not break WP:UNDUE, and does not occupy such a premier position. Can you please stop edit warring and make personal attacks, and discuss civilly pleases. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop using the term relexification unless you can demonstrate it with a reliable source based on my comment at User talk:Taivo. Stop saying "mainstream" in the Punic discussion as if there are ANY linguists who accept a Punic origin for Maltese. The issue is discredited and is only a historical reference. (Taivo (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Am I reading the Punic language history right- does User:Lockesdonkey hold the same viewpoints abut lexification and Punism? Ning ning (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The diff [[11]] Ning ning (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be the case. This is enough grounds for a new checkuser in my opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially interesting when you consider who it was that Yolgnu was reverting on the Punic article [12] - Kalindoscopy. ;)

You have registered today and have only edited Maltese language and Punic language. I call sock.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're saying I'm this Kalindoscopy too?? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you say I'm Lockesdonkey? Oh this gets better and better. So I suppose Magdelenadiarco, Fone4My, Yorkshirian, Daddy Kindsoul, Lockesdonkey, Brunodam, and myself are all one? Er, *cough* right *cough*...

Anyway, there is NO discussion here deala with relexification and the source. The source may been discussed for other things, but not for relexification. I ask you, have you even read the source on relexification? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No we are saying as the result of the checkuser case suggested that the above mentioned accounts are socks of three people working together to disrupt wikipedia - one of them (User:Iamandrewrice)editing from Manchester like you. About the relexification Myself, Taivo, Kwamikagami, Ning-ning and JdeJ have told you that we are not about to accept you disruption. You will not get us to discuss your stupid points anymore - you keep changing the point at hand every half hour and juggling the same trite sources. It is a case of simple trolling and it will be dealt with as such.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop remove the source. It is used elsewhere in the article too - Check cite numbero 7. It is not malreliable. It clearly states that Maltese was relexified. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh there it was (the Esperanto accent). How quaint.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember you say you ne speak Esperantlingvo, so how you conduct this? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please check your talk page, where I bring this up. The word 'relexification' is incorrect. Although it might be possible to say "partial relexification", as is occasionally done with Middle English, that could be misleading, and in the opinion of what appears to be every other editor of this page, is best avoided in this article. There is no advantage I can see to saying that Maltese is "partially relexified Arabic" (other than the fact that it sounds cool!) rather than saying it's "Arabic with large numbers of Sicilian loan words". kwami (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The source I gave showas it is relixified. And I see no discussion of this on my talk. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ĉu ne Relexification ?

Vian tonon mi ne ŝatas: "Explain immediately your revert at Maltese language"—vi ordonas min?—kaj via atentigema miksaĵo el Esperanto k la angla ridindas. Tiu tezo montras, ke la aŭtoro ne bone komprenas la sencon de la angla vorto relexification. kwami (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardonon pro la tono. Tamen, vi ne povas decidi kio estas fidinda kaj kio ne estas. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Malĝuste, redaktanto ja devas tiel decidi. Necesas ke vi konvinku nin ke vi pravas, ne nur diru ke vi pravas aŭ ke ni ne rajtas redakti. kwami (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I kindly remind both of you about WP:UE? I enjoy reading Esperanto as much as the next guy, but a talk page about an article should be in English. JdeJ (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to see if he actually spoke Esperanto, if that was just another con. He certainly is capable of using English without Esperanto inflections. kwami (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the Maltese language article is still sparking the same, never-ending diatribes & debates. And hosting dialogues in ugly conlangs. Imma jekk nikteb bil-Malti, kullhadd lest jejd xi haga!

I think representation as both a historical reality (it was once a commonly accepted theory) and the fact it is now largely discredited (by mainstream academe) should be reflected somewhere in the article.Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the best option. It's fringe to pair it with modern scholorship or use weasel words ("The earth is presumably round") but making a quick historical note about a debunked theory doesn't seem problematic to me, especially if it's paired with a discreditation. An example of this sort of thing is seen at ceceo where the urban legend of the king with a lisp is mentioned and debunked. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording as it now stands. It's a descredited, historical theory, but that doesn't mean the mention is inappropriate. Just as long as the "discredited" is loud and clear. Now if we can only get the sock puppet to stop claiming that Maltese has been "relexified". By the way, thanks for cleaning up the sock puppets citations on Relexification. The sock puppet's inability to properly cite a source is telling. (Taivo (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Just a heads-up: IPs from Opal Telecom in Manchester, England, have been editing Languages of the European Union to push the myth that Maltese is a "mixed language". —Angr 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voiced pharyngeal fricative

I noticed that in the alphabet table, Maltese has a letter GĦ (għ) called "ajn" which "has the effect of lengthening and pharyngealizing associated vowels" (I assume the "Approximate English pronunciation" is a bit off). Which I assume corresponds to Arabic ع. In the phonology IPA table, however, the "ʕ" phoneme is not mentioned.--Xevorim (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The approximation is generally accurate: I don't think any changes need to be made. What do other editors think? The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We needed it somewhere, either in the consonant chart or in with an additional series of pharyngealized vowels. Since għ becomes a clear fricative in devoicing environments, something which doesn't happen with vowels, I placed it in the fricative section of the consonants. kwami (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that Hume (1996) doesn't include the VPF as a consonant in Maltese's inventory. If I recall correctly, either Vowels and Consonants or SOWL mentions the pharyngealization of vowels in Maltese. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

History section

I've started a history section to cope with theories about Maltese, its development etc. Any suggestions/contributions would be appreciated. The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though I think the history section should be together with "media" and "future." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think incorporating the 'future' section in with 'history' would work nicely. The media bit could become more extensive though (it's currently got little/no info at all), so might warrant its own section. I'll continue working on it 'as is' over the next few days and see how things go. The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that I think the three sections should be next to each other (I'm neutral to combining "history" and "future"), just as a matter of organization. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't like the future section at all. It is much too close to WP:Crystal. I would much rather have a paragraph on current trends within the history section.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. You cannot predict the future of any language. You can only discuss trends. The "future" is the stuff of prognostication and original research, not of factual content which is the only realm that Wikipedia accepts as valid for its purposes. (Taivo (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Maybe something as ambiguous as 'trend' prognostication could be tagged onto the History section once it's done (if at all). I'll spend some time beefing up Media and consolidating History. The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside assistance required for more dispute on Italianate origins

Please look at Talk:Il- - an Italian origin for the definite article in Maltese is being repeatedly introduced without source from (surprise, surprise) an OpalNet Manchester IP. Outside comment is very gratefully welcomed. Knepflerle (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IPs & cleaned up the article. (You might want to check I didn't get anything wrong.) This should really be merged to this article, however. We should at least have a Maltese grammar article before we start writing articles an individual aspects of Maltese grammar! kwami (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. (Taivo (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Definitely merge. And a secondary concern: until the disputes about this page are settled, we really shouldn't spread the debate around multiple pages. Lizmarie (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The disputes are settled. There is just a stray POV pushing sockpuppeteer who doesn't agree with the general consensus and he has been extending his POV to other maltese related articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And now to Southern Italy as well. Dionix (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think whether Sardinia and Malta are considered to be geographically part of Italy is a separate question. kwami (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but not the point of my comment. I'm simply reinforcing what Maunus notes above: that this notorious POV pusher is alive and kicking (and not only through anon IPs). Dionix (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect User:Maltalia who joined only two days after MagdelenadiArco was banned and edits in the same way.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the silliness of the il- article, the edits look benign, if not always very precise. (Sardinia is in Southern Italy? but not Corsica?) I'm sure there are many of us who would be willing to take care of it if it becomes obnoxious. Meanwhile, it might be wise to do a sock check, so we don't have to wait for one later. Personally, I'm not adverse to reformed vandals or puppets contributing, as long as they're kept under watch for a while. kwami (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)