Jump to content

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Piedmontese

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Piedmontese Wikipedia[edit]

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at pms: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. Shanel 03:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Piedmontese (piemontèis, pms ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: bertodsera (NP), Dragonòt (N) marco106 (N) MIMO (N) GianGarné (N)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Notes/comments
    • Number of speakers: 2,5 millions
    • Locations spoken: Piedmont (alpine region) and some small areas in Argentina
    • Related languages: arpitan,ligurian, occitan, emilian, lombard, catalan

With 8 centuries of published literature in several hundreds of titles we still miss a wikipedia. It's time to correct this fault. bertodsera 23 March 2006, 00:29 (GMT+2)

Note for the developers: please put in the english language interface, we'd rather make a translation from the original source, than work to retranslate a translation. Files languagePms.php and messagesPms.php are bound to be ready within a week from now, just let me know how should I upload them and where to. The line names.php file should bear an additional line between Polish and Pashto, namely

  • 'pms' => 'Piemontèis' #Piedmontese

BTW, tips on how to include PMS on the Babel template would be greatly appreciated. Thank you :) bertodsera 25 March 2006, 21:11 (GMT+2)

First of all, thank you very much for your support. Native speakers who wish to be contributors are kindly asked to get in contact with me on the piemontviv [2] mailing list. We are putting up a redactional board to ensure all fields proposed to be common for all wikipedias are fullfilled. bertodsera 23 March 2006, 23.45 (GMT+2) Piedmontese text: Për anandiesse, mersì a tùit për vòstr sostegn! Ij parlant nativ che a veulo avnì a esse dij contributor, për piasì, che as faso viv ant sla mailing list ëd Piemontviv [3]. I soma dëmentrè che i butoma sù na redassion për assicuré che tute le categorìe, dont a fa da manca për compatibilità antra le diferente edission ëd la wikipedia, a-i sio ëdcò an nòstra edission. bertodsera 23 March 2006, 23.45 (GMT+2)
  • Strong support Indeed I had planned to propose this wikipedia, but I had postponed this issue, since I am not Piedmontese mother tongue. clamengh 25/03/06 13:53 UTC
  • Question: Is Piemonteis mutually intelligible with Lumbaart? Speakhits 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reply Well, this is a critical issue. I think so, and G.Hull's PhD thesis shows that these tongues are essentialy dialects of the same 'Padanese' tongue. However, now Lombard wikipedia currently uses a phonetic/prosodic ortography: maybe this issue should be involved into a more general discussion, But Piedmontese should perhaps be written by means of its classical ortography.

clamengh 25/03/06 13:58 UTC

another reply We have different grammar sets, different vocabularies (to the same extent we differ from arpitan, french, ligurian, catalan, occitan, medieval italian, too. Basically a written version of any of these languages (if your are trained enough) is intelligible to piedmontese speakers (which is why we plan to exchange packets of basic literature and poetry, to instate a better and less localized knowledge of non-govt recognized literature). In a spoken form, though, it is very difficult to understand each other (apart from border areas, where languages simply melt into each other, cfr. the Orbasch variant, standing between us and ligurians, for example). The problem with Lumbaart is also in that they do not have an historically established standard in writing conventions, because their territory was long broken in two parts. This lead to the birth of a western and eastern lumbaart, while we do have a strong tradition in stardard graphical conventions (they are now carrying experimental works that may eventually lead to a lumbaart unified set).
Then, it's merely a problem of defining what mutually intelligible is. I personally speak piedmontese with a french accent, when in France, and can manage to communicate pretty well. The same I do in lumbaart, occitan and catalan areas, never met any problem, as long as I speak slowly and both sides are willing to communicate. For example, I normally exchange emails with occitans, lumbaart and catalans, with everyone of us using his own mother language (for very local words we simply put an english translation between square brackets, it works wonderfully and helps us reinforce mutual intelligibility). Most piedmontese people will tell you that they cannot do the same, though, which seems absurd to me, but nonetheless happens.
From my personal point of view ALL gallo-romance languages are mutually intelligible, once you have some very basic ethimological notions, and the same applies to all slavic languages. The problem is not into understanding, but into getting used to it. I do understand some basic dutch, although I never studied it, but I find it similar to english enough for me to get the most of the meaning by occasionally using vocabularies and mostly using my brains. Nonetheless, most native speakers of all aforementioned languages either do not have my skills for languages (yet, I find it difficult to rate myself a genious), or are not willing to use their brains.
Anyway, I do not think that intelligibility should be a criteria for judging the utility of a wikipedia edition. If such was the criteria, then no language (apart from english) should be used. We all can use some basic english and, even if we cannot, restricting the published material to english only, would simply push towards a better diffusion of the english lingua franca, which in turn may only do good for all children (it's the only language that will grant them a job). Yet, wikipedias do have an important role in keeping a culture alive and, in languages which are much smaller than mine, they may in a few years get to be the only existing written piece in a dead language, which can only be valuable for all people doing linguistic investigation on this planet. As Mr. McLuhan would have said the media is the message, so the language you use is the most important info carried by a wikipedia edition.
In our case, we simply need it to make sure we can grant children an education in their own mother language, and shall use the mutual intellegibility of gallo-romance languages in order to promote communication among related cultures that have long remained insulated from each other because of political reasons. Mind you... Thank God I was supposed to answer shortly LOL :) bertodsera 25 March 2006, 14:29 (GMT+2)
      • As a matter of fact, this wikipedia should be considered as approved, since there are more than two native speakers supporting it, thus I will soon move it inno the 'approved' section. clamengh 25/03/06 13:59 UTC